You are on page 1of 12

Psalm CX

J. W. Bowker

Vetus Testamentum, Vol. 17, Fasc. 1. (Jan., 1967), pp. 31-41.

Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0042-4935%28196701%2917%3A1%3C31%3APC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-F

Vetus Testamentum is currently published by BRILL.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained
prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in
the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/journals/bap.html.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academic
journals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers,
and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community take
advantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

http://www.jstor.org
Mon Aug 6 23:21:53 2007
PSALM CX

J. W. BOWKER

Cambridge, U.K.

In a recent number of V.T. I), M. TREVES has revived the acrostic


interpretation of Ps. cx and thus, by implication, its Hasmonaean
dating. The acrostic is not simply lynw as in the earliest proposals of
it 2), but alX lynw, 'Simon is terrible'. Treves states the acrostic without
argument and without any consideration of its difficulties, perhaps
because he introduces it only as a confirmation of his more general
arguments that the Psalm must apply to Simon: "We may conclude
that our man must be Simon, the only person who fits the data of
our Psalm. This identification is confirmed by the acrostic,. . ." 3,
The acrostic is thus a confirmation of other arguments, but even
so it would add much weight to them if it could be shown conclusively
to exist. But the difficulties in the way of it are considerable. For
example, in order to make the acrostic begin with W the superscription
to the Psalm ' R N ~ mnl aN1 is omitted, yet the heading to the second
part of the Psalm, any ~ 5 317 1 92Wl has to be included 4). Another
obvious difficulty is that it is hard to see what metre (if any)
would be possible in the Psalm on an acrostic basis without
drastic emendation. Credible rhythms can be obtained from the
text as it is, but all of them eliminate the acrostic 5). T o divide
up the text without regard for metre in order to find an acrostic
seems somewhat arbitrary. On that basis it would no doubt be possible

l) Vol. XV (January, 1965), No. 1, pp. 85-90.


2) G . MARGOLIOUTH in The Academy, 1892, (1033), pp. 182-3; and G . BICKELL,
dbid., (1040), p. 351.
3, Op. cit., p 86.
4, I t is possible that the metre changes in the second half of the Psalm, which
u~ouldemphasise the deliberate nature of the break; v., G. R. DRIVER, YQD,
(Jerusalem, 1964), pp. 23-4, 28. TREVES himself recognises inconsistency in the
two halves when he says (of vs. 5) : "It may seem a bit strange that God, who in
vs. 1 was sitting at the left, should have changed places with the warrior,. . ."
(p. 87); but he attributes it to the poet's lack of skill.
6 ) See, for example, DRIVER,op. cit., and the text as laid out in Kittel' and
Snaith.
32 J. W. BOWKER

to find acrostics in other Psalms as well. It is true that the details of


Hebrew poetry and metre are often uncertain, but the general princip-
les of it are not I). Again, TREVES'case would have been much
strengthened if he had quoted the evidence of the title nlN 1YbW being
applied to Simon in the Hasmonaean period, but he has not done so 2).
Nor has he given any indication of the use of this Psalm by the
Hasmonaean-priest-kiigs to support their attempt to hold both
offices at once 3). The acrostic theory would seem, in the light of such

l) TREVES n owhere mentions the requirements of Hebrew poetry. The metre of


Ps. cx is difficult to find, but that does not mean that no metre ever existed.
2) PIN is not a common word, which makes it all the more necessary to establish
its use in connection with Simon. The meaning of in Hab. i 7 seems clear since it is
associated with N'I13, as also in PBH, e.g., B. Yoma 4b 115y P W ~It. also occurs
twice in the same phrase in Ca. vi 4 & 10, where the meaning is less clear. Torczyner
attempted to eliminate the word altogether by reading nhf3(;1)3 ;113'9N, 'how art
thou so wonderful', but the contructioa would be extremely unusual. Perhaps there
was originally here the different root 8"
(p),
8
'to be without a husband', either of a
widow (widower) or of one who has never been married, i.e., virgin or chaste
(Dt. xii 25). But it is hard in that case to see any sense for n l h f 3 (unless as a
misunderstanding for v-Jt>). Therefore S. D. GOITEINhas proposed a slight shift
in meaning (on the basis of various parallels) and translates: 'splendid like the
brilliant stars', which is appropriate for vs. 10. Possibly there were originally two
different phrases which have been assimilated because of their similarity. (For
GOITIN'Sarguments, v.,J.S.S., X, pp. 220f).
3, TREVES has not argued the case, but it is certainly possible to do so, although
the arguments are largely inferential. T o give two examples: the written acclama-
tion of Simon in 1 Macc. xiv 27-47 applies to Simon the phrase 'leader and high-
priest for ever' (4youpkvov xui Bpx~a~ku aiq ~ b uidvu);
v this suggests that Ps. cx
might have been written for the same person. But in fact it argues nothing about
the date of the Psalm at all. I t need not suggest any more than that the Psalm was
appbd to Simon; and the phrase with which 1 Macc. xiv 41 continues points in that
direction: ". . .i w s TOG &vuc~.r.ijvu~
xporp.ii~rjvx ~ a ~ 6 v This
" . has no direct parallel in
the Psalm (although it might perhaps be derived from vs. 7b). The fact that
1 Macc., (in a context where it purports to be representing what people wrote about
Simon) does not make use of the Psalm directly but only in association with other
phrases and ideas makes it more likely that the Psalm was applied to Simon than
that it was written for him. A second line of argument is on the basis of the
Testament of Levi. The argument would be: the discovery of fragments of the
Testament of Levi among the DSS makes it possible to treat them as potentially
Jewish (as opposed to Christian-adapted) documents (though certainly some texts
might be influenced by Christian editing). Test. Levi iii-iv describes the vision of
Levi in terms resembling parts of Ps. cx: he is accepted by (El) Elyon, and is to be
both his priest and his son. Test. Levi viii, in the words of G. WIDENGREN ('Royal
Ideology' in Promise and Fu@llrnent, (ed. F. F. BRUCE,T. & T. Clark, 1963), p. 204),
"reproduces certain moments of the ritual of enthronement where various
attributes belonging to the ruler are handed over to Levi who receives them and
puts them on". The attributes include "a branch of rich olive" (viii 8). The word for
'branch' is pdp6oq, which is the word used by the LXX in Ps. ii 9 & cx 2. Further-
more, Levi is anointed and receives "bread and wine, the holiest things" (viii 4, 5 ;
PSALM CX 33

considerations, to be extremely weak, and although the Hasmonaean


dating does not depend on it, its failure suggests that there may be
grounds for questioning the other, more general, arguments as well.
In TREVES'article these fall into roughly four groups:
1. "The Hasmonaeans are the only warrior-priests in Jewish
history" 1).
2. The Psalm nowhere mentions that the person addressed is a klng,
therefore it can be assumed that it is not a king who is addressed:
"If our warrior had been a king, the poet would have found an
opportunity to say so" 2).
3. The Psalm must have been written in a time when Israel was a
republic because "the hymn would have sounded insulting to the
sovereign" 3, (since it says that God, not the king, defeats the enemies).
4. There are a number of post-Deuteronomic parallels in thought
and language 4).
Of these arguments the second and the third carry little conviction.
It is impossible to say post eventurn what a poet 'would' have said:
supposing he simply decided to do otherwise? Nor is it necessarily
derogatory to anyone to say that God fights his battles for him;
it may be nothing more than a way of emphasising his invincible
might, the consequence of his being the Lord's anointed. The fourth
argument is undoubtedly the most substantial, but even so it requires
much more careful handling than it has received, for at least three
reasons. In the first place, it would have been helpful if the reasons
had been given why ear4 parallels have been rejected and only late
ones quoted: for example, on vs. 1 TREVES mentions 1 Chron. xxix 23
and 1 Kings ii 19 and then says, "A closer parallel I find in Calli-

c.f., Gen. xiv 18). These close associations are then taken to imply that Ps. cx and
at least the basic Test. Levi were produced at about the same time and for the
same purpose, to support (and to provide a liturgy for) the Hasmonaeans. But
here again nothing more has been proved than that Ps. cx influenced the Test.
Levi; it has certainly not been proved that Ps. cx must have been written at the
same time as Test. Levi. The fact that Test. Levi draws on so many other O.T.,
images alongside those of Ps. cx (see WIDENGREN, op. tit., for details) makes it
likely that the Psalm was simply one of its sources. ~ ' I D E N G R E Nreaches the same
conclusion: "VC7hen Levi in our text is mentioned as the priest of the Most High,
Elyon, as His son, and as receiving the holy garb and the emblems of a royal
ruler, we obviously come across a royal tradition, taken over from the Davidic
rulers by the Hasmonaean priest-kings". (p. 209).
I) p. 86.
2, p. 86.
3, p. 86.
4, pp. 87f.

Vetus Testamentum XVII


34 J. W. BOWKER

machus' Hymn t o A p o l l o 29" I); but surely some consideration


should be given to earlier parallels, even if only to give the reason
for their rejection-passages such as Bacal 11. v. 46ff:
wtk .pnh .tcdb.ks;

wyttb .lymn .iliyn

bcl.. . . (note particularly the context).

Secondly, some of the late parallels depend on understanding


the text of the Psalm in ways that are difficult to sustain: for
example, on vs. 6b TREVES suggests as parallels "Ezekiel xxxii 5
(or xxxv 8, in which God fills the valleys with the slain)" 2). This
implies an understanding of the verse similar to that of RV: "He
shall fill the places with dead bodies". Whatever the difficult phrase
n131~N?? may mean, it surely cannot mean that. Probably it would be
better to accept the suggestions of WUTZ3, and TOURNAY 4, that the

text should be repointed nnj xyn 'full of majesty' (nqxx). As DRIVER


3 '

points out, "That Aquila and Symmachus as well as" Jerome read
nrxl 'valleys' supports the insertion of x and its loss is easily
explained as due to its quiescence; and the same defective spelling
is seen in 37; for 37x3 (Jb. xxii 29; xxxiii 17)" 5 ) . Thirdly, even if
the parallels had been better established it would still be essential to
argue which way round the influence was : an early Psalm of funda-
mental importance in the cult might well have had a very consi-
derable influence on later language.
It remains to consider the first of TREVES'arguments, that only
the Hasmonaeans could have been called 'warrior-priests' with any
accuracy. David is eliminated as a possible subject of the Psalm by
implication. But is the argument correct? David could certainly have
been called a warrior, and although TREVESis right in pointing out
that the Psalm does not necessaril3, refer to a king, it does not follow
that it codd not have done so 6). The case must remain open. On the
l) p. 87.

2, p. 87.

3, F. WUTZ,Die Psalmen, (Miinchen, 1925), p. 294: "Hoheit MajestM".

4) R.-J. TOURNAY, (in the index R. P. R. TOURNAY), 'Notes sur les Psaumes',

Vivre et Penser 111, (R.B. LII, 1944), p. 226.


5 ) 0 p . cit., p. 25 (abbreviations expanded).
6, TREVES seems to recognise this when he says: " . . .the word 'my lord', which
occurs in vs. 1, was used by the Hebrews as a respectful vocative or a polite
substitute for a pronoun in reference to both kings and commoners,. . ." (p. 86,
italics mine).
PSALM CX 35

other hand there are much stronger grounds for saying that David
could not have been called a priest. At this point TREVES might have
called on H. H. ROWLEY for support: ". . .While we elsewhere find
the promise of an enduring throne for David and his house, we do
not find the thought of an enduring Davidic priesthood. SKINNER
observes that 'the existence of such priest-kings in Canaan in very
early times is perfectly credible, though not historically attested' I).
What is required is not evidence that the king played a priestly part
in certain festival rites, but that he ordinarily exercised the functions
of the priest, and was as truly the priest defacto as he was the king" 2).
But it is not at all clear that this is what is required; it is possible that
ROWLEY is asking for too much. Ps. cx specifically says that the person
addressed is a priest of a strange and different sort, "a priest after
the order of Melchizedek". Is it not possible to understand the Psalm
as an attempt to justify the way in which David (and his successors)
performed priestly acts in the cult? There is no doubt that they
performed such acts, as can be seen in 1 Sam. xiii 9-10; 2 Sam. vi 13,
17f; xxiv 25; 1 Kings iii 4, 15; viii 5, 62-4; ix 25. As DE VAUXpoints
out (and he himself is very cautious on questions of sacral hngship) :
"Some of these texts can, of course, be taken in a factitive sense,
that the king 'had sacrifice offered', but not all are capable of this
meaning. And other texts in fact exclude it: in 2 Kings xvi 12-15,
Achaz goes up to the new altar he has made, offers the first sacrifice,
and then commands the priest to continue the liturgy there; in
1 Kings xii 33 it is said that Jeroboam 'went up to the altar to offer
sacrifice' (cf., xiii If). Again, David and Solomon bless the people in
the sanctuary (2 Sam. vi 18, 1 Kings viii 14), which is a rite reserved to
the priests by Num. vi 22-7 and 1 Chron. xxiii 13. Solomon consecrates
the middle of the court (1 Kings viii 64). David wears the loincloth
which is the vestment of officiating priests (2 Sam. vi 14), Neither the
prophets nor the historical books before the exile make any protest
against these intrusions by the king into liturgical worship. It is only
after the end of the monarchy that they become a stumbling block, and

l) Cf. Genesis (I.C.C.), 1910, p. 268. (Rowley's footnote). It seems very strange
t o quote Skinner as evidence of Canaan in early times, since he was writing before
the discovery of the Ras-Shamra texts.
2, 'Melchizedek and Zadok', Festschrift f i r A. Bertholet, (Tiibingen, 1950),
p. 471. But ROWLEY did not conclude from this that the Psalm must in consequence
be late. H e concluded that at least vs. 4 of the Psalm must have been addressed to
someone else, someone, that is, other than David. That person, he suggests, was
Zadok. For a summary and brief consideration of this view see below.
36 J. W. BOWKER

2 Chron. xxvi 16-20 says that Ozias was struck with leprosy because he
had dared to burn incense at the altar, thus usurping a privilege of the
sons of Aaron (2 Chron. xxvi 18, cf., Num. xvii 5,1 Chron. xxiii 13)" 1).
Admittedly the king seems to have acted as priest on great occasions
only or in exceptional circumstances, but that is perhaps exactly
what Ps. cx envisages. . For this reason DE VAUXquestioned ROWLEY'S
solution (that vs. 4 in the second half of the Psalm refers to Zadok) :
"The text can be explained otherwise: it could mean that the king
was a priest, but in the only way in which an Israelite king could
b e . . . . He was a priest in the same way as Melchizedek, who, it
was thought, had been king and priest in that same Jerusalem where
the new king was being enthroned" 2). ROWLEYeliminated David
from vs. 4 of Ps. cx on the grounds that David was not a priest
in the 'Old Testament' sense; yet that is exactly what the Psalm
itself says of the person it addresses. On general grounds, therefore,
there is no reason why the Psalm cannot be understood as an attempt
to justify the special sense in which David might be called 'priest' 3).
And if that is so, the fourth of TREVES'arguments turns out to be
inconclusive. Whether that understanding of the Psalm is correct
depends to a great extent on the place and meaning of Gen. xiv 18-20,
the only other passage in the O.T., where Melchizedek is mentioned.
Gen. xiv is a notoriously difficult chapter. TREVESdismisses it as
"late interpolation" 4), but it contains features which pose what L.-H.
VINCENThas called, ,,. .. le dilemme fameux: rkcit inspirk d'histoire
archaique, ou vulgaire midrai tendancieux et tardif composk a la gloire
du grand ancktre national du peuple hkbreu?" 5, Perhaps the best
solution to the dilemma is the simplest one, that both elements are
present: an old tradition survived independently (because of its
connection with the cult?) and was incorporated in the Pentateuch
at a late stage =). The invention of the whole story at a late date is

l) DE VAUX,Ancient Israel, (Eng. tr., 1961), pp. 113f.


2, ibid., p. 114.
3, ROWLEY had other grounds for arguing that vs. 4 was originally addressed to
Zadok. These will be discussed below.
4, p. 87: "During the Persian and Hellenistic periods the nations that had been
subjugated. . .liked to invent stories about their own ancient heroes". But no
doubt they were capable of using ancient stories about them as well.
5, 'Abraham 2i Jerusalem', R.B. LVIII, (1951), p. 360.
6 ) For EISSFELDT its inclusion in its final form would have to be at the latest
possible date: "With this narrative it is quite clear that it presupposes the already
complete compilation L + + + + + +
J E B D H P, and that it has been
inserted into it. For it is dependent not only on the L narrative of Lot and Abra-
PSALM CX 37

unlikely: indeed, the later the date the less likely it is that a story
would have been invented in which Abraham pays tithe to a foreign
king. That it might have been invented to help support the Has-
monaeans is even less probable; it is hard in fact to see how it would
do so. It therefore seems more hopeful to explore the same hypothesis
as ROWLEY, when he says: "Like other stories in the book of Genesis
it was probably intended to serve an aetiological purpose" I). But if
that is so then what was the purpose?
The most usual solution is that it was intended to legitimise the
Davidic-type kingship which borrowed so much from the native
ideology of Jerusalem. Thus WIDENGREN summarises : "This narrative
in a way serves to legitimate the Davidic ruler as installed by El Elyon,
for Melchizedek represents his God Elyon, and Abraham stands as a
symbol for the Davidic rulers" 2). ROWLEY dissented from that view
and made his own suggestion, which started from previous arguments
about Zadok: "In the age of the Israelite Conquest the king of
Jerusalem was Adoni-zedek (Josh. x 1-3), and at the time of David's
capture of Jerusalem a priest Zadok suddenly emerges. I have
elsewhere offered reason to suppose that Zadok was the pre-Israelite
priest of the Jebusite shrine of Jerusalem, and this view has been
presented independently by others" 3). He then argued that the only
possible aetiological connection between Gen. xiv and Ps. cx is
through Zadok, not through David: "On this view the reference to
the order of Melchizedek, whose successor in the Jebusite priesthood
Zadok was, would be fully in place, and if taken in conjunction with
the story in Gen. xiv would be of real significance. As Abram had
recognised the priesthood of Melchizedek, so David recognises the
priesthood of Zadok, and takes a solemn oath in the name of Yahweh
that Zadok is irrevocably confirmed in the priesthood" 4). So he
concluded that the Psalm falls into three parts: vss. 1-3 addressed to
David, vs. 4 addressed to Zadok, vss. 5-7 the priestly blessing on
David. ROWLEY'S case is attractive, and it gains some additional
support from the change of metre in vss. 4-7; it is also supported to

ham. . .and of Sodom. . . , but also on P with which it has all manner of linguistic
pecularities in common. . . ." But this does not rule out the possibility that the
narrative includes very old elements, as EISSFELDT goes on to point out. (The
Old Testament: an Introduction, Eng. tr., 1965, pp. 211ff.)
l) ROWLEY, op. cit., p. 462.
2, WIDENGREN, op. cit., p. 208.

ROWLEY, op. cit., p. 464.

4, Op. cit., p. 470.

38 J. W. BOWKER

some extent by TREVES observation of inconsistency in the two halves


of the Psalm I). Nevertheless, it contains weaknesses as well: the
foundation of his argument (that Zadok was the pre-Davidic priest
in Jerusalem) is certainly plausible, perhaps even probable, but it
cannot be said t o be proved 2); the view that David could not have
been thought of as a priest cannot be sustained; more important,
the change of metre is consistent in the second half of the Psalm,
which supports the impression of the Psalm itself that the same
person is being addressed throughout: the change back to David
in vs. 5 is possible but awkward. ROWLEY'S final argument is also
open to doubt : " . . .If Ps. cx is addressed to David, as is held by most,
then David was both king and high-priest, as Melchizedek had been.
But it is then quite impossible to link together the interpretation of
Gen. xiv and Ps. cx. For it is quite certain that Gen. xiv had no
aetiological relevance to David's kingshp or priesthood over Jeru-
salem" 3). But is t h s in fact so?
ROWLEY'S hypothesis treated the Melchizedek incident in Gen. xiv
in isolation, although it occurs in the context of Abraham's dealings
with another foreign king, the king of Sodom. It may of course be
felt that the context is artificial, and that an independent tradition
about Melchizedek was inserted into an existing narrative at an
apparently appropriate point. But perhaps the immediate context
is not artificial at all. In vss. 17-24 the traces of a story can be seen
in which Abraham meets two kings, not one, and in which his
dealings with them are sharply contrasted 4 ) : he accepted gifts from
I) V., above, p. 31.
2, The original connection of Melchizedek with Jerusalem has recently been
questioned by R. H. SMITH ('Abram and Melchizedek', Z.A.W., LXXVII,
2 (1965), pp. 129-153). He argues that the original reference of shrflem was not
to a place but to some aspect of a covenant relationship (pp. 139-46). But this does
not affect the fact that Shalem was identified with Jerusalem within the O.T.
period, as he recognises (pp. 139-41). He also argues that the connection of fdq
with Jerusalem is inconclusive, because ~ d oq ccurs widely in W. Semitic names;
but again this does not affect the fact that the connection is there.
ROWLEY, op. cit., pp. 471ff.
*) VSS. 17a & c, 18-20, 22-23. The mention of a king of Sodom in the story
might then have suggested the appropriateness of its attachment to the other
narrative in Gen. xiv., since that also contained an allusion to a king of Sodom.
The connection is established in vss. 17b (1nN ...' 7nN) and d (possibly a gloss to
explain 3lW PnY, but v. SMITH,op. tit., p. 140, n. 23), 21 and 24. SMITHrejects the
connection of the two kings as artificial, but he does not consider the possibility
that an independent tradition involving two kings has been incorporated into
the narrative of Gen. xiv, and has been cut down for the purpose. Yet on his
own interpretation the hlelchizedek episode is truncated: "Abram comes to
PSALM CX 39

one foreign king but refused them from another. The purpose of the
story might then have been to emphasise exactly that contrast. It is
legitimate to accept 'gifts' from Jerusalem (which is what David had
done in tahng over ideas of hngship from there and in establishing
Jerusalem as h s capital) 1); but it is not legitimate to accept them
from other nations. In other words, David's action is not to be extend-
ed into a general principle of syncretism, nor is h s action to be
criticised on that ground 2).
The contrast in Abraham's dealings with the different hngs
provides a coherent and consistent context for Gen. xiv and Ps. cx.
Gen. xiv gives theoretical support to what Ps. cx implies, namely
that David borrowed alien ideas and applied them to himself. The
connections of Ps. cx with sacral hngship have long been recognised
and will certainly be familiar to readers of this Journal 3). What
perhaps needs to be emphasised is the experimental nature of David's
kingship. The loosely related Hebrew tribes seem to have had one
of their rare moments of concerted effort in the Philistine crisis 4,
and in the subsequent capture of Jerusalem 5 ) . David undoubtedly
tried to consolidate this unity and make the alliance de crise more
permanent. His actions were repeatedly conciliatory, so far as that
was possible 6)' even to foreign nations 7). At one point he was
apparently prepared to join the Philistines in order to achieve his
Melchizedek's city with an army and encamps threateningly. T o avoid siege and
possible destruction of his city, Melchizedek capitulates to Abram, coming out
with bread and wine as tokens of hospitality for Abram and his men, making a
speech of conditional surrender, and offering Abram a fixed tribute from the city
if he will depart". (p. 137). Very little of this actually survives in the narrative.
l) It is important to realise that Sodom is used symbolically in the O.T., as well.
Although the original dealings of the Hebrew tribes with Sodom were potentially
friendly, Sodom soon became a symbol of extreme wickedness and of everything
to be avoided. See, for example, Is. iii 9; xiii 19; Jer. xxiii 14, xlix 18, 1.40; Lam.
iv 6 ; Zeph. ii 9; cf., also Ezek. xvi 44-63, esply. vss. 56-8.
2, It became an argument against the monarchy later o n : v. I Sam. viii.
3, For a convenient, though short, bibliography, v. 0. EISSFELDT, op. lit.,
pp. 103, 210, 737.
*) Cf., also Saul's action in rallying the tribes against Nahash, 1 Sam. xi 7.
5, V. esply. 2 Sam. v 1-10.
0, SO, for example, in his dealings with the house of Saul, with Abner and with
Absalom; cf., also the almost bloodless way in which the revolt of Sheba b. Bichri
(specifically an attempt of the N. tribes to break away, 2 Sam. xix 41-xx 2) was
dissolved. The same concern can be seen in David's last charge to Solomon,
1 Kings ii 5-9.
') In 2 Sam. x David is anxious to maintain the alliance with the Ammonites:
it is they who break it. In 2 Sam. xxi Iff David recognises the claims of the Gibeon-
ites against the house of Saul.
40 J. W. BOWKER

own position I). Therefore it is not surprising to find David using


Jerusalem and the kingship associated with it in order to provide a
focus for the experimental unity of the tribes. But equally it is not
surprising that David sometimes met opposition on the grounds
that what he was doing was an innovation 2). This is particularly
clear, for example, in Nathan's opposition to the building of a Temple,
which could have no place in the nomadic traditions 3). In the end
the attempt to unify the tribes around the principle of kingship
failed, and the Northern tribes withdrew 4). But the fact that it held
the tribes together as long as it did is significant. Still more significant
is the deep and lasting influence which kingship had on theological
thought, particularly in the transference of hope from the historical
to the future messiah. Those two points alone suggest how vigorously
David asserted the importance of Jerusalem and of the kingship
associated with it. Yet what he did was certainly open in theory to
the charge of innovation and syncretism. Gen. xiv (understood as a

I) 1 Sam. xxix.
2, The Rechabites show how strong conservative feelings were.
3, 2 Sam. vii. N o doubt much of this chapter is an attempt to explain why David
failed to build a temple and why it was left to Solomon to do so, but there is
probably a basic element of truth in the story-that there was opposition to the
building of a Jerusalem-type temple, since it conflicted with the ancient nomadic
traditions (2 Sam. vii 2). For a recent attempt to argue that this chapter is not a
deuteronomic composition see A. WEISER,'Die Tempelbaukrise unter David',
Z.A.W., lxxvii, 2, (1965), pp. 153-68. See also D. J. MCCARTHY, '2 Sam. vii and
the structure of the Deuteronomic History', J.B.L., LXXXIV, Pt. 2, (1965),
pp. 131-8.
*) The later Southern interpretation of the break emphasised the element of
religious apostasy (1 Kings xii). But in fact it seems to have been much more
comparable to the withdrawal of many of the Arab tribes after the death of Mu-
hammad: they had been prepared to act in alliance under his able and rewarding
leadership, but when he died the alliance naturally dissolved in the time-honoured
way. The dissolution was only checked by a vigorous campaign to keep the tribes
in line. Here also, the element of religious apostasy was stressed-not least in
calling the campaigns 'The Wars of the Riddah (Apostasy)'. Thus ibn Hisham
records: "ibn 'Ishiiq said: Siilih b. Kaysan told m e . . .from (K'isha, who said:
The last thing which the Apostle of God commanded was when he said, Let there
.
not be two religions left in the Arabian peninsula. . . When the Apostle of God
was dead the Muslims were much stricken. (A)isha used to say (according,to what
I have heard): When the Apostle of God died the Arabs apostasised (>sJl)and
Christianity and Judaism became prominent, and disbelief (jld:Jl this word also
contains the element of abandoning a belief once held; v., esply., Qur)an iv 13617-
139140, ix 65/4-6918; 74/3-7817, xxxiii 12ff.) emerged. The Muslims became like
sheep exposed to the rain o n a winter's night through the loss of their Prophet
until God brought them together under abu Bakr". (SIRAT,edn. 1955, Vol. 11,
p. 665).
PSALM cx 41

contrasting encounter with two kings) would have considerable


aetiological relevance in meeting such a charge.
ROWLEY is therefore incorrect in saying, "It is quite certain that
Gen. xiv had no aetiological relevance to David's kingship or priest-
hood over Jerusalem" l). On the contrary, a plausible relevance
can be found, though it would be rash to claim it as certain or even
as probable. It is rash to say that anythng is 'certain' where the
evidence is the consequence of a long history of transmission. Yet
that is no reason for ignoring what evidence there is, and in the case
of Ps. cx it includes evidence to suggest that the Psalm may have had
a very early origin, possibly in connection with David. Whether or
not the evidence is conclusive is no doubt a matter for individual
judgement.
The weakness of TREVESarticle is that he has made no attempt
to judge it; indeed, he has scarcely even mentioned it. And to revive
the acrostic interpretation of the Psalm by assertion rather than by
argument does not help to settle the difference between a late and
early date. This is not to say that TREVESis necessarily wrong:
the case may remain open. But it is evidence and argument that is
needed.

You might also like