Thread: David and Yahweh in Psalms 23 and 24

If you have access to this article then make sure you read it!!

Goulder, M. (2006) “David and Yahweh in Psalms 23 and 24″, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 30(4), pp. 463-473

This article challenges the common understanding of Psalm 23 as being the song of an individual faithful Israelite. With so many expressions having national overtones, it seems more likely that the singer is a national leader, perhaps the king, rather than a lay person. The psalm belongs together with Psalm 24; these two psalms may well have formed part of a liturgy going back to David's reign. The annual autumn festival was an opportunity to celebrate Yahweh's kingship, with a ritual procession of the ark up to the Temple. But it was also an opportunity to confirm and celebrate the human kingship of David and his dynasty, which was not quite so secure.

The LORD is my shepherd. -- Psalm 23:1

The LORD of hosts, he is the King of glory. Selah. -- Psalm 24:10b

Think about it!

Originally Posted by jaybird0827

The LORD is my shepherd. -- Psalm 23:1

The LORD of hosts, he is the King of glory. Selah. -- Psalm 24:10b

Think about it!

Not too sure what your point is mate.....link Ps. 24 with Ps. 15. Now link Ps. 24 with Pss. 47, 93, 95-99. Link Pss. 93, 95-99 by means of Ps. 96 to 1 Chronicles 16. All of these Psalms then are linked to YHWH's enthronement. We could of course add others

"Annual autumn festival"?? Where do we find that in the Bible?

Also, this article asserts that these Psalms have to do with the ark going up to the temple on a yearly basis at this supposed festival. However:

1) The temple was not constructed until after David. David is the author of these Psalms.

2) Once the temple was built, the ark was permanently housed there.

Admittedly I haven't read it but the abstract leads me to believe that the author is coming from a higher critical perspective.

Originally Posted by Guido's Brother

"Annual autumn festival"?? Where do we find that in the Bible?

This argument is made often yet there are a number of problems. One major one is "so what"? So it is not in Scripture but does that mean it did not happen? One part of the Feast of Tabernacles was the fetching of water from the pool of Siloah, and pouring it with wine upon the altar. It happened. Fact. Now where do we find that in the Bible?

I would posit that a YHWH enthronement festival took place as part of the Feast of Tabernacles (Cf. The Evidence for an Autumnal New Year in Pre-Exilic Israel Reconsidered)

Originally Posted by Guido's Brother

1) The temple was not constructed until after David. David is the author of these Psalms.

That does not mean that the psalms were not used as part of an annual celebration when the ark went up to the temple.

Originally Posted by Guido's Brother

2) Once the temple was built, the ark was permanently housed there.

Can you prove that?

May I also add that Psalm 22-24 explore the different roles of Christ. Christ as the suffering Servant, Christ as the Shepherd of His people, Christ as the coming King of Glory.

Originally Posted by AV1611

This argument is made often yet there are a number of problems. One major one is "so what"? So it is not in Scripture but does that mean it did not happen?

Originally Posted by Guido's Brother

2) Once the temple was built, the ark was permanently housed there.

Can you prove that?

With regards to your first question: the issue becomes whether or not the Israelites were free to add or take away from the worship of Yahweh as they pleased. My sense is that there may be a regulative principle issue here.

1 Kings 8 describes the bringing of the ark into the temple. Verse 8 implies that the ark permanently remained in the temple after this.

I recently preached on Psalm 24. When I read the abstract of this journal article I get the impression that the author views Psalms 23 & 24 more as a record of Israelite religion than as a revelation from God (typical of articles in JSOT). While it may be interesting to toss these ideas around in the ivory tower, when it comes to preaching and teaching they are of very limited value, if of any value at all.

Originally Posted by Guido's Brother

With regards to your first question: the issue becomes whether or not the Israelites were free to add or take away from the worship of Yahweh as they pleased.

Not at all, the question is whether as part of the Feast of Tabernacles the Jews celebrated the annual enthronement of YHWH. The fact is the Jews added ceremonies and so why could they not have celebrated the annual enthronement of YHWH (with a physical Ark or not)?

It is certainly not coincidental that the Chronicler linked Ps. 96 with 1 Chronicles 16 (the Ark's ascension) which has (deutero) Isaianic themes is hardly coincidental.

Originally Posted by AV1611

Originally Posted by jaybird0827

The LORD is my shepherd. -- Psalm 23:1

The LORD of hosts, he is the King of glory. Selah. -- Psalm 24:10b

Think about it!

Not too sure what your point is mate.....link Ps. 24 with Ps. 15. Now link Ps. 24 with Pss. 47, 93, 95-99. Link Pss. 93, 95-99 by means of Ps. 96 to 1 Chronicles 16. All of these Psalms then are linked to YHWH's enthronement. We could of course add others

Sorry I wasn't clearer. I was thinking how remarkable it is that the Lord who is our Shepherd is that same Lord who is the Lord of hosts. Your observation is much more in depth and I appreciate it.

Psalm 23

Psalm 24

Goulder's imagined liturgical use of the Psalms is quite unhelpful. The better exegetes see the Psalms as transcending Israel's worship both in terms of spirituality and universality. If we consider the so-called enthronement Pss, we will see this makes perfect sense. All the earth is summoned to sing to the Lord. The Psalter is genuinely the hymnbook of the New Testament church.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

The better exegetes see the Psalms as transcending Israel's worship both in terms of spirituality and universality. If we consider the so-called enthronement Pss, we will see this makes perfect sense. All the earth is summoned to sing to the Lord. The Psalter is genuinely the hymnbook of the New Testament church.

Indeed, however the sitz im leben ("setting in life") helps us to understand the message of the Psalms better.

Originally Posted by AV1611

Originally Posted by armourbearer

The better exegetes see the Psalms as transcending Israel's worship both in terms of spirituality and universality. If we consider the so-called enthronement Pss, we will see this makes perfect sense. All the earth is summoned to sing to the Lord. The Psalter is genuinely the hymnbook of the New Testament church.

Indeed, however the sitz im leiben helps us to understand the message of the Psalms better.

Oh puhleeze! If I have to read a conversation on a non-academic forum, which attempts to employ German academic terminology (which can be much more clearly explained to the "uninitiated" using English discussion) I think that I am going to

Tell me you were joking.

Originally Posted by Archlute

Originally Posted by AV1611

Originally Posted by armourbearer

The better exegetes see the Psalms as transcending Israel's worship both in terms of spirituality and universality. If we consider the so-called enthronement Pss, we will see this makes perfect sense. All the earth is summoned to sing to the Lord. The Psalter is genuinely the hymnbook of the New Testament church.

Indeed, however the sitz im leiben helps us to understand the message of the Psalms better.

Oh puhleeze! If I have to read a conversation on a non-academic forum, which attempts to employ German academic terminology (which can be much more clearly explained to the "uninitiated" using English discussion) I think that I am going to

Tell me you were joking.

Amen.

Originally Posted by Archlute

Tell me you were joking.

So you think that the liturgical use of the psalm and its setting in life does not shed light on its meaning?

FWIW: Sitz im Leben is mainstream language in Psalm study even if it did originate in Continental academia.

I think it makes one come across as pretentious when they type in German – or Latin! – when there is a perfectly acceptable English translation. Even in academic papers – I’m writing to English speakers – so why write in German when the English will do? Because I want to look like I’m intelligent? Well-read? Gimme a break! If you want to see how well-read I am, just look at my bibliography!

Anyway…

Richard – Of COURSE understanding the “setting in life” er, historical context, of a given passage helps in understanding it. But what I think Wes was saying – and I think it is a good point – is that it is a bit anachronistic to say that these psalms were written for an annual processional concerning the ark dating to David’s reign, when the Temple wasn’t made until after David’s time.
Even if these psalms were employed in some sort of extra-biblical ceremonies concerning the ark – and I think that given the rank paganism of the pre-exilic Jews, them conducting ceremonies not prescribed in Scripture is a good possibility – it is precisely because these would have been subsequent to David, (meaning) the writing of these psalms, that they can’t accurately be said to reflect any of the context in which they were written. The only way I see to make it fit would be to reject Davidic authorship…

Yours,
Ben

Originally Posted by SolaScriptura

I think it makes one come across as pretentious when they type in German – or Latin! – when there is a perfectly acceptable English translation. Even in academic papers – I’m writing to English speakers – so why write in German when the English will do? Because I want to look like I’m intelligent? Well-read? Gimme a break! If you want to see how well-read I am, just look at my bibliography!

I disagree. It is handy to use technical words in order to save having to explain concepts all the time. Further, I was addressing Rev. Winzer who understands the technical term used. If I were addressing poorly educated folk I would not have used the term, but I was addressing a well educated and seminary trained pastor on a fairly technical issue anyway.

Originally Posted by SolaScriptura

Richard – Of COURSE understanding the “setting in life” er, historical context, of a given passage helps in understanding it. But what I think Wes was saying – and I think it is a good point – is that it is a bit anachronistic to say that these psalms were written for an annual processional concerning the ark dating to David’s reign, when the Temple wasn’t made until after David’s time.

The author is not arguing for the procession to the Temple as dating to David's reign as is clear from the article, rather an annual processional concerning the ark dating to David’s reign that once the temple had been built became an annual processional concerning the ark to the temple.

The abstract is not worded in the best way having re-read it.

The word is Leben, not leiben (not a German word to my knowledge).

And it is not to be confused with the verb, leben, which is not capitalized. Nouns in German are always capitalized.

Sitz im Leben

Originally Posted by Davidius

The word is Leben, not leiben.

And it is not to be confused with the verb, leben, which is not capitalized. Nouns in German are always capitalized.

Sitz im Leben

Originally Posted by AV1611

Originally Posted by Davidius

The word is Leben, not leiben.

And it is not to be confused with the verb, leben, which is not capitalized. Nouns in German are always capitalized.

Sitz im Leben

One of the hazards of using foreign languages....

Originally Posted by SolaScriptura

One of the hazards of using foreign languages....

Quite, but then again I sometimes spell English words incorrectly

Originally Posted by AV1611

Indeed, however the sitz im leben ("setting in life") helps us to understand the message of the Psalms better.

You are gratuitously assuming the "sitz" was liturgical. Most of the conjecture on folk settings depends on reading Jewish traditions back into the history and then correlating them with other ANE worship. This is unacceptable from a reformed viewpoint. Grammatico-historical exegesis of the text should inform our understanding of the original context; a speculative context should not dictate our understanding of the text.