[1] To say that Hebrew Wisdom Literature was similar to some of the writings of its neighbors does not mean that there were not differences-especially in its development with respect to one God. Nevertheless, several factors were similar: (1) it was essentially practical, (2) it was attributed to God alone, (3) it was relevant to all parts of life (see R. K. Harrison, Introduction, pp. 1004-1009; Hill and Walton, Survey, pp. 248-252; La Sor et al, Old, pp. 534-542; Pritchard, ANET, pp. 589-607).

[2] Much of what follows is from S. Craig Glickman, class notes of student in 903 Soteriology, Dallas Theological Seminary, Fall 1981.

[3] Much of what follows was adapted from Glickman, Ibid., Elliott E. Johnson, class notes of student in 303 Old Testament History II and Poetry, Dallas Theological Seminary, Spring 1981; Expository Hermeneutics: An Introduction, pp. 106-132. Geisler affirms that Legal literature provided the moral life of the people, Historical literature provided the political life of the people, and Poetical literature provided the spiritual experiences of the people (A Popular Survey of the Old Testament, p. 179). While there is some truth to this, the descriptions do not fully express the development of the different types of literature.

[4] The wisdom aspect throughout the Psalms is the concept that the righteous will be vindicated and the wicked will suffer (Ps. 1).

[5] See the discussion by La Sor et al, Old, p. 545.

[6] Elliott E. Johnson, “Principle of Recognition: Chapter IV” (unpublished class notes in 315 Advanced Hermeneutics, Dallas Theological Seminary, Fall 1983), pp. 55-56.

[7] The Hebrew term hmkh was generically used to describe the skill which one might have with craftsmanship (Ex. 31:1-11), architectural ability (1 Ki. 5:9-18) or, handiwork (1 Ki. 7:14; Isa. 44:9-17). The skill that the fear of the Lord gives is the ability to make good choices about life (Prov. 1:1-7).

[8] R. K. Harrison writes, “worldly wisdom, through less elevated in nature, was different only in degree and not in kind from divine wisdom. The whole of life was thus connoted in terms of religious experience, and wisdom was held to be relevant at all points of existence” (Introduction, p. 1008).

[9] Two broad categories exist to define wisdom literature: (1) Proverbial wisdom-short, pity sayings which state rules for personal happiness and welfare [e.g., Proverbs], and (2)

Contemplative or Speculative wisdom-monologues, dialogues, or essays which delve into basic problems of human existence such as meaning in life, or suffering [e.g., Ecclesiastes and Job]; see La Sor et al, Old, pp. 533-542.

[10] These are concrete, down-to-earth statements rather than broad, philosophical evaluations (cf. Prov. 12:4; 11:2; 17:10); La Sor et al offer an enjoyable discussion of this characteristic (Old, pp. 537-538).

[11] An example of the essential difference between Mesopotamian wisdom literature, and that of Israel may be found in the first millennium Babylonian “Dialogue of Pessimism” which concludes a similar struggle as Solomon’s in Ecclesiastes with absolute despair:

“Slave, listen to me,” “Yes, master, yes.” “Then what is good?” “To have my neck and yours broken and to be thrown into the river. Who is so tall that he can reach to the heavens? Who is so broad that he can encompass the underworld?” “No, servant, I will kill you and let you go first.” “Then (I swear that) my master will not outlive me by even three days” (Pritchard, ANET, p. 601).

How much different is this conclusion than that of the modern existentialist?

[12] As Ross writes, “The Psalms are the inspired responses of human hearts to God’s revelation of Himself in law, history, and prophecy” (“Psalms” BKC, p. 779).

[13] The language of the Psalms is concentrated when compared with prose. The concentration occurs through the use of images, symbols, figures, emotive vocabulary, and multiple meanings (Ross, “Psalms”, BKC, p. 780). The figurative language, “is an instrument for conveying densely patterned meanings, and sometimes contradictory meanings, that are not readily conveyable through other kinds of discourse” (Alter, The Art of Biblical Poetry, p. 113).

The word pictures enable the reader to feel much of what the poet did when he wrote the lines. This capacity to “imagine” that which one has not experienced is probably tied to the image of God (Who was able to imagine all possible creations before he made this one). Therefore, one must be sensitive to figurative language in order to capture the emotional meanings of the poetry.

[14] Hill and Walton, Survey, pp. 252-253; Kidner, Psalms 1-72, pp. 1-4; R. K. Harrison, Introduction, pp. 965-972; Ryken, Words of Delight, pp. 180-185.

[15] Hill and Walton, Survey, pp. 257-258; See also Ryken, Words of Delight, pp. 159-185, 313-340.

[16] The two-fold division is argued upon (1) the way in which Moses’ Law is referred to as a unit throughout the Scriptures, (2) the way in which the historical books are linked together as a unit, (3) the reference in Daniel to the Law and the “books” [9:2], and (4) the recognition of the “Former” prophetic books by the “Latter” (See Geisler and Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible, pp. 148-161).

[17] Prologue to Ecclesiasticus (c. 132 B.C.), Jesus in Luke 24:44 (A.D. 30) Josephus, Against Apion, I.8 (A.D. 37-100).

[18] The Writings include: (1) Poetical Books-Psalms, Proverbs, Job, (2) Five Rolls (Megilloth)-Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Esther, Ecclesiastes, (3) Historical Books-Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, Chronicles

Sometimes Ruth was attached to Judges, and Lamentations was attached to Jeremiah thereby making the Hebrew canon comprised of 22 books rather than the more usual 24 books (see Geisler and Nix, General, pp. 18-19).

[19] Critical scholars assume that the three-fold division reflects dates of canonization in accordance with their dates of compositions-Law (400 B.C.), Prophets (c. 200 B.C.), Writings (c. A.D. 100). However, this thesis is untenable in light of early reports of a three-fold division (c. 132 B.C.; see above).

See Geisler and Nix, General, p. 151. This critical approach is suggested by La Sor et al as an explanation for the placement of Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles, Esther, Song of Solomon, and Ecclesiastes when they write, “Essentially, the purpose of the Writings as a whole was to collect those sacred books whose purpose, character, or date excluded them form the collections of law and prophecy (Old, p. 508-509).

[20] Song of Solomon (eighth day of Passover), Ruth (second day of Weeks, or Pentecost), Lamentations (ninth day of Ab, in mourning for the destruction of Solomon’s temple), Ecclesiastes (third day of Tabernacles), Esther (Purim).

[21] The word “truth” (tma) was composed of the initial letters of each book-a (boya, Job), m (ylvm, Proverbs), and t (<ylht, Praises or Psalms) see R. K. Harrison, Introduction, p. 965.

[22] Law = Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy

History = Joshua, Judges, Ruth, I Samuel, II Samuel, I Kings, II Kings, I Chronicles, II Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther

Poetry = Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon

Prophets/Major = Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel

Prophets/Minor = Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi.

For a more extensive overview see Geisler and Nix, General, pp. 17-25.

[23] This division seems to be older than the oldest extant manuscripts of the Psalms since it exists in all manuscripts. The order of the last two books (IV and V) do differ in some of the Dead Sea Scrolls suggesting that their final order was not canonized until around the time of Christ. But all of the Psalms remain present (The LXX does have one extra Psalm (151) concerning David’s battle with Goliath).

Smaller collections exist within the larger books: (1) Davidic group I: 3-41; (2) Sons of Korah group I: 42-49; (3) Davidic group II: 51-65; (4) Asaph group: 73-83; (5) Sons of Korah group II: 84-88 [exc. 86]; (6) Congregational Praise group I: 95-100; (7) Hallelujah group: 111-117; (8) Songs of Ascent to Jerusalem: 120-134; (9) Davidic Group III: 138-145; (10) Congregational Praise Group II: 146-150

[24] Psalms range from Moses to the post-exilic period. Therefore, there were probably various stages and revisions in their collection. Evidence of former stages of editing may be found in the colophon-like conclusion of Ps. 72 (“the prayers of David, the son of Jesse, are ended” even though other Psalms of David follow) as well as the YHWH (Book I) and Elohistic editing (Book II).

[25] Not all would agree with this evaluation (e.g., Ross, “Psalms” BKC, p. 784; Waltke, “Notes on the Psalms”, p. 2), but Walton and Hill offer considerable information regarding this thesis (Survey, pp. 275, 278-281). The logical progression is built upon the function of “seam” psalms which unite the first four books (42; 72; 89; 106) and form a transition from one book to the next. While there are still some significant questions to consider in this presentation, the proposition is plausible. Usually the five-fold division is associated with the five books of the Law. However, in such a correlation, no real striking correspondence can be traced between the Psalms and the Pentateuch (see R. K. Harrison, Introduction, pp. 986-987; La Sor et al, Old, pp. 510-511).

Regardless of the canonical shape of the Psalter, each Psalm must be interpreted individually. The Canonical shape of the Psalter may, however, offer insight into the nation’s understanding of a particular psalm theologically. See the discussion on “Royal” psalms (Introduction, pp. 115-117).

[26] Psalm 1 would describe ultimate vindication for the righteous; Psalm 2 would describe God’s choice and defense of the Israelite king. David fits into these two themes as the righteous individual whom God vindicates as king.

[27] This unit includes many individual laments; most psalms mention enemies.

[28] As a whole these psalms can be correlated with David’s reign as recorded in 2 Samuel including the crises with Absalom (Pss. 54-64; esp. 55:12-14,21).

[29] This may well represent the eighth-century Assyrian crisis. The key psalm is Psalm 78.

[30] This unit begins with a Psalm of Moses and ends with a recapitulation of a history of rebellion leading to a hope and a plea for restoration. The collection of praise psalms (95-100) expresses the hope sustained in the Exile.

[31] This book emphasizes thanksgiving to God for regathering the nation.

[32] Psalms 146-150 offers a finale to the entire cantata.

[33] See Allen P. Ross, “Psalms” in BKC, p. 788; Hill and Walton, Survey, pp. 281-282.

[34] See Psalms 6:5; 30:9; 88:4-5,10-12; 115:17 (Ross, “Psalms”, BKC, p. 788). Later, the Prophets expressed a hope in the resurrection (Isa. 26:19; Ezek. 37:1-14; Dan. 12:2). Perhaps the closest one comes to the Psalmists view of a future with God may be found in Psalms 16-17; 49 and 73, but these may also be understood naturally (Ibid., p. 789; see also Dahood, Psalms [1970]: xli-lii).

[35] These imprecatory psalms were not personal vendettas (cf. Ps. 109:4-5). Any foe of Israel’s was a foe of God’s. Therefore, they were longings for God to vindicate His cause upon the earth-to judge sin! There is still a place for these “curses” in Christianity-especially upon Satan and his henchmen. See La Sor et al, Old, p. 530-531; C.S. Lewis, Reflections, pp. 20-33; Chalmers Martin, “The Imprecations in the Psalms,” The Princeton Theological Review 1 (1903): 537-553.

[36] Hermann Gunkel pioneered a form-critical (formgeschichte) approach in his Einleitung in die Psalmen or Introduction to the Psalms, translated by Thomas Horner (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967). He identified the Psalms with ritual (cultic) acts in Israel’s worship (cf. 1 Samuel 1:24-2:10; 1 Chronicles 16:1-37). Even though many of his theories do not have historical evidence, the categories of Psalms by form are extremely helpful to the interpreter.

[37] The forms of Psalms are not unique from the ANE neighbors. However, the theology of the Psalms was molded by the Law (see Hill and Walton, Survey, pp. 276-277).

[38] Almost all other Psalm forms (except for Wisdom Psalms) may be found as a subsection of the Lament Psalm. La Sor et al may be right in identifying this type of psalm with the title of “complaint” rather than “lament” since the psalms are descriptive of prayers for help and a “lament” is closer to the dirge-like form of Lamentations 1-2; 4 (Old, p. 516 n. 17; see also Childs, Introduction, p. 510).

[39] Even Lament Psalms were prayers of great confidence in the Lord which often turned to praise before the answers actually came (Ps. 57).

[40] These Psalms are not understood by their form so much as by the content of their thought. See Alan P. Ross for much of what follows (“Psalms”, in BKC, pp. 786-787).

[41] For a discussion on the feasts see de Vaux, Ancient Israel, pp. 71-110; Kraus, Worship in Israel, pp. 26-69, 131f., 136-141, 179-188. A helpful summary of their work is found in La Sor et al Old, pp. 523-528.

[42] Survey, p. 280.

[43] See the discussion by La Sor et al, Old, pp. 520-521. Concerning the contribution of the canonization of the Psalms upon “royal psalms” Childs seems to be right when he writes, “although the royal psalms arose originally in a peculiar historical setting of ancient Israel which had received its form from a common mythopoetic milieu, they were treasured in the Psalter for a different reason, namely as a witness to the messianic hope which looked for the consummation of God’s kingship through his Anointed One” (Introduction, p. 517; cf. pp. 515-517).

[44] In these Psalms features of the psalmist’s life foreshadow Messiah in that His life and experience are parallel to them (Pss. 41:9; 69:5,9; 118:10-12).

[45] In these psalms as David describes his inward and outward experiences, they are beyond the limits of his experience and are thus true only in Messiah (Pss. 16:10; 22). See Ross, “Psalms” BKC, p. 789.

[46] The following list of “headings” is taken from Bruce Waltke’s “Notes on the Book of Psalms”, pp. 5-8. Theses headings demonstrate that many of the Psalms were probably connected with ritual and temple worship

[47] For a refutation of the arguments on which this evaluation is based see Gleason Archer Jr., A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, pp. 424ff.

[48] See Leupold, pp. 6-7, and J.G.S.S. Thompson, “Psalms, Book of “The New Bible Dictionary (Eerdmans, 1962), p. 1053; also compare 2 Sam. 1:19ff; 1 Sam. 16:18ff; 1 Chron. 6:31-32; 1 Sam. 16:13; 2 Sam. 7; 23:1,2; Acts 4:25; Romans 4:7; Hebrews 4:7; Matthew 22:44.

[49] See Delitzsch on Psalm 90.

[50] Gesenius notes: “the introduction of the author, poet, etc, by this Lamed euctoris is the customary idiom also in the other semitic dialects, especially in Arabic” (GKC, p. 129c).

[51] See Dahood, pp. xxix, xxx.

[52] For further discussion see Ahlstrom, Psalms 89; Eine Liturgie aus dem Ritual des leiden Konigs, (Gleerups 1959), pp. 27-36.

[53] See Delitzsch.

[54] See Ralph Alexander, pp. 31f.

[55] See Leviticus 7.

[56] For other views see Delitzsch.

[57] Ross presents several possible alignments of Psalms and historical material (“Psalms”, BKC, p. 783); see also R. K. Harrison, Introduction, p. 978. For the historical of these notations see Alexander, pp. 51ff.

[58] John Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, p. xxxvii.

[59] La Sor et al, Old, p. 530.