It is often held that the book of Psalms is the biblical version of a hymn book, with little or no structure. Does the book of Psalms indeed have no structure and organization beyond a few obvious features? (These include: Psalms is divided into five books, Psalm 1 functions as an introduction, it includes several collections, most obviously the Songs of Ascent, Psalm 120-134, and the so-called Final Hallel, Psalm 146-150.) Is it a straightforward anthology, a compilation in which the arrangement and the order of the collected items are largely random and therefore meaningless?
You can also watch this content as a VIDEO PODCAST or listen to it as an AUDIO PODCAST
The latter is what I remember from the School of Biblical Studies (SBS) in 1988. It certainly was the scholarly consensus at the time (Wilson 1985: 1-3). And making a comparison with modern-day hymn books, such a disorganised collection of hymns and prayers is quite conceivable. Some modern-day hymn books do have an order; they may, for instance, arrange songs for use at specific Christian holidays and additional occasions. Others, however, do not.
Reading through the book of Psalms, most psalms appear unrelated to the ones immediately preceding and following. Is Psalms therefore an anthology in which each psalm can be studied independently from its immediate context?
In his dissertation, Gerald Wilson (1985) presents a strong case against this consensus, demonstrating that Psalms shows clear signs of deliberate and conscious editing:
I feel it is possible to show that the final form of [the book of Psalms] is the result of a purposeful, editorial activity which sought to impart a meaningful arrangement which encompasses the whole. (Wilson 1985: 199)
This is the first question that needs to be answered: Does the book show signs of purposeful editing? In this issue, I will seek to answer this question. If the answer is yes, the next question is: What is the purpose and therefore the message of the arrangement? This is a harder question; I will deal with it in the next issue.
A Curious Comment in Psalm 72
First, an argument against arrangement and purpose. There is a widespread theory that the book of Psalms grew over time. In some versions, it is claimed that the five books in which Psalms is divided mark earlier and therefore shorter versions. Over time, the initial collection was expanded by adding books. This would make it less likely that there is a conscious arrangement.
One potential piece of evidence for this view is an editorial remark (the only one of its kind in the entire book) at the end of Book 2: “The prayers of David, the son of Jesse, are ended” (Ps. 72:20 ESV). Surprisingly, plenty more psalms are ascribed to David after this, especially in Book 5. Does this mean that there was an earlier version of Psalms that ended with Psalm 72?
Perhaps, but there are other possible interpretations. Psalm 72:20 could mean that here is the last prayer offered by David for his son and successor, at the end of his life. In that case, David, not Solomon, would be the author; the superscript means “for” or “to Solomon”, not “of Solomon”. The remark, then, does not necessarily claim that it is David’s final prayer in Psalms, implying an earlier and shorter version of the book.
Alternatively, it might mean that this psalm completes the prayers of David or that they are fulfilled when the blessing in the preceding verses becomes reality.
Even if the verse does mark the end of an earlier version, there would still be the question of what the final editor did with the material and what he had in mind. The editorial remark is no evidence against a deliberate composition.
The Five Books of Psalms
One undeniable organizational feature is the division of Psalms in five books (see the table below). Each book except for the last one finishes with a doxology, an expression of praise for God. In all cases, this begins with “Blessed be the Lord” and finishes with “amen”, which is used twice in the first three books but only once at the end of Book 4. However, in Book 4, each of the final three psalms (Psalm 104-106) concludes with “Hallelujah!” (or “Praise the LORD!”).
That this is not by coincidence shows at the end of Psalms. Here, in Psalm 146-150, we find the so-called Final Hallel (from Hebrew hll, meaning to praise). Every single one of the concluding five psalms begins and ends with “Hallelujah!” Psalm 150 is an exuberant and climactic call to praise. Every single line of this Psalm is an appeal to worship. The appeal is issued to “everything that has breath”.
As such, the Final Hallel appears to be the response or answer to David’s prayer in the psalm immediately preceding it:
My mouth will speak the praise of the LORD,
and let all flesh bless his holy name forever and ever. (Ps. 145:21)
In addition, it is worth pointing out that Psalm 1 functions as an introduction to the entire book. In one sense, this is a surprise because it is a wisdom psalm, not a prayer or song of praise. We should keep this in mind when studying Psalms. It is an indication that this is more than a songbook.
Even though at first sight the subject seems to be very different, Psalm 1 is closely connected to Psalm 2. One feature that brings this out is the absence of a title or superscript. This is exceptional in the first three books of Psalms. The two psalms are also connected by several words and phrases they have in common. There are too many parallels for this to be a coincidence (for more on this, see Cole 2013).
Psalm 1 speaks of the righteous man (and the wicked) in general. The righteous person meditates on God’s law day and night. But this is precisely what the king of Israel was to do. The messianic king of Psalm 2 is therefore the righteous man par excellence. The nations of Psalm 2 are like the wicked of Psalm 1 and suffer a similar fate.
Together, Psalm 1 and 2 set the tone for the book: righteousness, the wicked, God’s law, God as king, his human representative.
At least two more messianic psalms (Ps. 72; Ps. 89) have been strategically placed in the arrangement, at the seams of Book 2 and 3 (see table below). This, plus the large number of psalms ascribed to David makes for a strong royal and Davidic emphasis and theme throughout the book.
This is purposeful editing indeed.
- Book 1 Psalm 1-41
- Ends: Blessed be the Lord … amen and amen
- Seam: Psalm 1 and 2
- Book 2 Psalm 42-72
- Ends: Blessed be the Lord … amen and amen
- Seam: Psalm 72
- Book 3 Psalm 73-89
- Ends: Blessed be the Lord … amen and amen
- Seam: Psalm 89
- Book 4 Psalm 90-106
- Ends: Hallelujah! (Ps. 104 and 105); Blessed be the Lord … amen. Hallelujah! (Ps. 106).
- Book 5 Psalm 107-150
- Includes: Psalm 110; Psalm 119; Songs of Ascent (Ps. 120-134)
- Ends: Hallelujah! … [Psalm] … Hallelujah! (Final Hallel, Ps. 146-150)
Further Signs of Purposeful Editing: Author and Genre
So far so good. But is there evidence that individual psalms throughout the book have been purposefully arranged beyond this arrangement in books? If so, by which principle have they been arranged?
Most psalms in the first three books have a title or superscript which often includes authorship and genre or type. [I am going to simplify things here. There is debate about the meaning of phrases such as “of David”. It is often argued the phrase denotes something different than authorship, such as a dedication of sorts (“to David”). This makes no difference for the patterns that can be observed; I will therefore ignore the issue and speak of authors.]
There are clusters of psalms by the same author and clusters of the same type. However, for no author are all psalms grouped together. Even the mere two psalms carrying the name of Solomon (Ps. 72 and Ps. 127) have not been placed together but are widely separated. With one exception, the psalms belonging to the same type are never all grouped together either. The lone exception is the so-called Psalms of Ascent (Ps. 120-134), often understood as songs for pilgrimage on the way to Jerusalem, all of which appear together. As Wilson admits:
First, authorship cannot be considered the primary organizational concern of the final Hebrew Psalter. While there are a number of large groupings, in no case are all the [psalms] of a particular author brought together into a single collection. (Wilson 1985: 156; emphasis in original)
However, there is a pattern in the use of authorship: at the end of each of the first three books, change of authorship serves to mark the border between books (Book 1: from David to the sons of Korah in Book 2; Book 2: from Solomon to Asaph in Book 3; Book 3: from Ezrahites to Moses in Book 4).
This correspondence of authorship-change with the book divisions and the doxologies which serve to mark them is hardly fortuitous. It must represent conscious editorial activity either to introduce such author-changes in order to indicate disjunction between such divisions or to make use of such existing point of disjuncture in the division of the Psalter. (Wilson 1985: 157)
Like authorship, genre is not applied consistently as a principle of organization. Psalm 56-60, for instance, is a grouping of psalms each designated a miktam, but they are not the only ones in the book.
However, such genre groupings are used to soften transitions when the author changes within a book (Wilson 1985: 163). An example is Psalm 47-51, where the authorship changes from the Sons of Korah to David within Book 2. All five psalms are designated as a mizmor, thereby “spanning the point of transition” (ibid.), implying there is no division here, despite the change in authorship.
Another example is Psalm 62-68. These psalms are ascribed to David, except for Psalm 66-67, for which no author is given. But each of these psalms is identified as a mizmor (psalm); in addition, Psalm 65-68 are also identified as a syr (song; Wilson 1985: 163-4). Clearly then, we are to understand that there is no break. Wilson concludes:
All these examples have been taken from within the book divisions of the Psalter. At each point of disjunction, the occurrence of the same genre categories in consecutive [psalm]-headings spends the gap, softens the harshness of transition and binds the whole more closely together. (Wilson 1985: 165; emphasis in original)
Psalms are not consistently grouped based on author or genre, but authorship and genre are used to mark the boundary of each book and to communicate the absence of a boundary where a change in authorship might suggest there is one. This obviously “supports the idea of purposeful, editorial activity behind the organization process” (Wilson 1985: 167).
The Elohistic Psalms and Other Features
There are more larger patterns to observe. The book of Psalms uses Yahweh as a name for God far more than the generic elohim (a general term for God or a god). Except in Psalm 42-83, the so-called Elohistic Psalms. Here, elohim predominates. I am not aware of a good explanation for this feature. The Elohistic Psalms include all of Book 2 but only part of Book 3.
However, as David Mitchell (1997: 71) points out, we do find a chiastic structure here that spans all of Book 2 and 3:
- A. Korah: Psalm 42-49 (Elohistic Psalms begin)
- B. Asaph: Psalm 50
- C. David: Psalm 51-65, 68-70
- B. Asaph: Psalm 73-83 (Elohistic Psalms end)
- A. Korah: Psalm 84-85, 87, 88, (89)
Book 1-3 therefore stand somewhat apart from Book 4 and 5. The vast majority of psalms in Book 1-3 have a superscript. The three books are enclosed within messianic psalms (Ps. 2, Ps. 72, and Ps. 89). And, as Michael Snearly (2013: 211) remarks: “The notion that the story line of the Psalter hinges on Psalm 89 is approaching a consensus among editorial critics.” And now we see that Book 2 and 3 are united by this chiasm based on authorship.
In contrast, many psalms in Book 4 and 5 come without authorship – but not without structure, as the table above has made visible. Important is also that Book 4 includes the so-called enthronement psalms, royal psalms in which Yahweh becomes king over all the earth (Ps. 93 and Ps. 95-99). Again: the royal theme is an important one in Psalms. Book 5 includes the Songs of Ascent (Ps. 120-134).
This Is Not a Song Book??
Even apart from the question of what this elaborate structure means, there are consequences for the “right” way of using the book.
1. All of the above suggests Psalms as a book was not put together as a songbook. Individual psalms could, of course, be used in personal or communal worship. But it is not the purpose of Psalms to provide a ready collection of songs to choose from.
2. Although each psalm can be fruitfully interpreted on its own, without regard for its place and function in the book, there is an additional level of meaning that we leave out if we do this. Gerald Wilson once more:
The Psalter has on occasion been styled “the Hymn Book of the Second Temple.” This rather unfortunate designation has had the adverse effect of focusing a disproportionate amount of attention on the individual compositions contained within it. A “hymn book” collects hymns so that they may be readily available for individual use in worship. Emphasis is placed on the secondary use of the individual members of the collection rather than the collection itself. While some hymn books evidence a limited attempt to group their contents by theme, interest or liturgical function, there is seldom any sustained, organizational purpose at work in consecutive arrangement.
It is this view of a “hymn book” which is normally applied to the Hebrew Psalter: a sourcebook from which to extract individual [psalms] which are then read in another context which is provided for our own purposes. It is this view also which I have termed “unfortunate,” for it obscures the indications that in its “final form” the Psalter is a book to be read rather than to be performed; to be meditated over rather than to be recited from. (Wilson 1985: 206f; emphasis in original)
Next: So… If there is a structure, what is its message?
Attribution
Song books: Kyler Nixon <https://unsplash.com/photos/urKdeazlvTQ> CC0
Library: Jarmoluk <https://pixabay.com/photos/library-book-reading-education-488690/> CC0
References
All Bible quotations from: The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. 2001 (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles)
Cole, Robert L. 2013. ‘Psalms 1-2: The Psalter’s Introduction’, in The Psalms: Language for All Seasons of the Soul, ed. by Andrew J. Schmutzer and David M. Howard (Chicago: Moody Publishers), pp. 183-95
Mitchell, David C. 1997. The Message of the Psalter an Eschatological Programme in the Book of Psalms (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press)
Snearly, Michael K. 2013. ‘The Return of the King: Book V as a Witness to Messianic Hope in the Psalter’, in The Psalms: Language for All Seasons of the Soul, ed. by Andrew J. Schmutzer and David M. Howard (Chicago: Moody Publishers), pp. 209-17
Wilson, Gerald Henry. 1985. The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter, SBL Dissertation Series, 76 (Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press)
Disclosure of Material Connection: Some of the links in the post above are “affiliate links.” This means if you click on the link and purchase the item, I will receive an affiliate commission. If you purchase anything through such a link, you help me cover the cost of Create a Learning Site.