THE OXFORD HANDBOOK OF

THE PSALMS

Edited by

WILLIAM P. BROWN

OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS

CHAPTER 33

JEWISH THEOLOGY OF

THE PSALMS

MARC ZVI BRETTLER

}EWISH BIBLICAL THEOLOGY COMES OF AGE

THE idea of Jewish biblical theology was first raised by Moshe Goshen,..Gottstein (1980-1981) in a Hebrew article over thirty years ago, which he refined in a contribution to the Frank Cross (1987) festschrift several years later. Since then various scholars have offered contributions on what Jewish biblical theology might or should look like and given examples. The movement has reached adolescence, if not mat"�Jrity, with Marvin Sweeney 's recently published Tanak: A Theological and Critical IntrodJ.Jction to the Jewish Bible, which begins with a discussion of Jewish biblical theology and •ttempts a reading of the entire Hebrew Bible that is both theological and critical (Sweeney 2.012.: especially 11-36). The recent publication of a volume of collected essays on Jewish biblical theology (Kalimi 2012.) also reflects this movement's coming of age. These works are essential, since as recently as 1998 biblical scholars could write as if there were no sustained theo­logical reflection on the Bible in Jewish circles (Gillingham 1998: 115-43).

Jewish biblical theology has grown steadily since Goshen-Gottstein's proposals. A 1997 bibliography on Old Testament theology listed only six items on "The Jewish Perspective" (Martens 1997). Barr's survey two years later had a brief but encouraging survey of the incipient field (1999: 2.86-311), noting that "the importance of Jewish par­ticipation is so obvious that it requires no underlining" (p. 6o6). RolfRendtorffhas also suggested that although "the term 'theology' designates a set of qu¢stions that is alien to the Jewish tradition," "it is significant that Jewish biblical scholars are now speaking unselfconsciously of'theology' and of the need to be occupied with it" (2.oosa: 744. 746).

One impetus for this development was a conference organized by Michael Fishbane and the Tikva Frymer-Kensky at the University of Chicago on Jewish biblical theology in May 1996.1he papers, some published (e.g., Brettler 1997; Frymer-Kensky 2.000), others

486 THE OXFORD HAXDBOOK OF THE PSAL.MS

not, recognized the newness of the Yenture. Frym.er-Kensky opened her essay by observ­ing, "At one time, not too long ago, ·writing on ' Je\\'ish biblical theology' would have been considered unthinkable" (2000: 109). The conference also ihfluenced others who were present, including Benjamin Sommer, the most significant and creative young voice in this arena (see Sommer 2012.). By 1oo;, enough was \\Titten on the subject for Ziony Zevit (1oo;) to "ATite a largely critical article titled "Jewish Biblical Theology: Whence? \-\'hy? And Whither?"

Another impetus for exploring the field was Jon D. Levenson's 1987 oft-cited essay, "Why Jews Are Not Interested in Biblical Theology" (reprint�td in Levenson 1993: 33-61). Even non-Jewish scholars have advocated its importance within the Christian com­munity (Brawley 1000) , and there is a broad, but not universal, consensus that Jewish biblical theology should in many ways be similar to mainstream Christian biblical the­ology-it should engage the same sorts of issues, bridging critical biblical studies, which is imagined to be neutral with respect to religion, and post-biblical through modern Jewish biblical interpretation and belief. The request by the editor of this volume to include this essay, on the Jewish theology of Psalms, recognizes correctly that the results of such a study are likely to be different from those of the subsequent essay, on Christian theology of the Psalms.

SOME TENETS OF JEWISH

BIBLICAL THEOLOGY

Jewish biblical theology would not approach each genre or bpok in the same way. Most obviously, Jewish biblical theology would highlight the importance of Torah texts, since in a variety of ways the Torah functions as prim us inter pares. It plays � central role in the synagogue service, is commented on more than any other biblical work, and is the main source of halakhah, Jewish practice (Greenspahn 2.012.: 18-24). But the book of Psalms is not far behind in Judaism. Although some view the tripartite canon as reflecting decreasing levels of importance, from Torah to Writings, this is not so. Within Judaism, many psalms are more important than, for example, the prophetic book of Habakkuk. The Psalms is widely cited in the Jewish prayer book (Reif 1003: 1947-1948) and in rab­binic literature. It is the best-attested book among the Dead Sea Scrolls-there are more copies of the Psalms than of any other biblical book (Tov 1001: 167-81; see the list in Flint 1006: 133, 151-54). Thus, unlike some works that might be proper objects of study within Jewish biblical theology but not Christian (e.g., Deut. 6:4-91), or within Christian but not Jewish (e.g. Jer. 31), the Psalms is an ideal object of study within both faith traditions.

In a previous essay, I had suggested that biblical historical texts should be exam­ined from a biblical theological perspective with the following four perspectives in mind: (1) We should hardly be concerned about the historical veracity of the bibli­cal text, (1) we must not harmonize divergent biblical traditions, (3) we must be more

JEWISH THEOLOGY OF THE PSALMS 487

sensitive to the true genres of biblical historical texts, and (4) we must understand what stands behind these texts that are framed as depictions of a past (Brettler 1997). Many of these criteria are relevant to the Psalms and to the problems that the book presents. To the extent that there are some historical psalms, criteria (1) and (4) are especially rel­evant: The main focus should not be on the texts' connection to real historical events but on the past that these texts are trying to create, the theological vision that stands behind

that past, and the implications of that past for the present Several psalms make this point very clearly. The core of Psalm 136 consists of refer­

ences to God as creator and to having performed various acts in history, but these are not narrated for their own sake, but, as the psalm's frame indicates, in order to convince the audience to praise God (vv. 1-3, 2.6). The refrain states: "His s�adfast love [(Jesed] is eternal" (NJPS), and thus God can be of help now as well. Psalm 106 recounts past "events" from Egypt and Canaan, but here too the interest is not in the events themselves but in reminding God that he heeded his people's cries in the past for the sake of his name (v. 8), his covenant and his faithfulness ((Jesed), and should save Israel again now. The psalmist's generation sinned like the ancestors (v. 6: "We have sinned like [Heb 'im, literally "with"] our forefathers"), and they should be saved like the ancestors.

In exploring Jewish theology and the Psalms, I realize that I overgeneralized when I stated as a general principle: " (3) We must be more sensitive to the true genres of bibli­cal historical texts." I said this in relation to biblical historical texts because I was con­cerned that they be read as depictions of a past rather than as depictions of the past,

namely as accurate historical representations (Brettler 1997: 577-80 ). The study of genre in relation to the Psalms has a completely different history from that of genre within his­torical texts. Some scholars feel that modern biblical scholarship is moving away from Gunkel's position, which emphasized the importance of genre (Zenger 1998: 163-2.08). Jewish biblical scholarship has been less interested in genology and has, in general, been more concerned with the psalm's meaning rather than its pre-history, which the search for genre and Sitz irn Leben emphasize. To the extent that Jewish biblical theology has as one of its areas of focus Jewish post-biblical interpretation of the Bible (just as Christian biblical theology looks at the New Testament's and other Church expositions of the Old), it is significant that Jewish tradition was hardly concerned with the type of genre concerns that Gunkel and others developed

THE CENTER OF THE BIBLE

Of the four perspectives on biblical historical texts listed above, the only one that is most relevant for the study of Palms is "(2) We must not harmonize divergent biblical tradi­tions." I began to explore this in a previous publication (Brettler 2.012) and now return to this issue in more detail within a broader theoretical framework.

488 THE OXFORD HANDBOOK OF THE PSALMS

A key issue of Christian biblical theology is finding the Mitte or center of the Bible (Hasel 1991: 172.-99; Penchansky 1995: 71-91: Barr 1999: index, s.v. "Centre for OT Theology"). Different scholars have suggested a wide variety of centers (Preuss 1995: 2.1-23), many of which involve themes that are prominent in the New Testament.

In the late twentieth century, however, some recent Christian theologians suggested that the OT does not have a center and are more circumspect about connecting the OT to the New (Martens 1997: 57). The clearest expositions of this position are the works ofGoldingay (1987), Brueggemann (1997), and Gerstenberger (2.002.). Goldingay's posi­tion is more historically based, Brueggemann's is more philosophically based, depen­dent on post-critical thought, while Gersternberger 's is more sociologically oriented. Thus, within contemporary biblical theologies, there is mQvement away from finding the "middle" of the OT as well as some movement toward seeing the OT autonomously from the New (Hasel1991: 172.-99 ), though the position that"Biblical theology views the biblical canon as a unity" continues to be voiced (Wells 2.012.: 111).

Within Jewish biblical theology, the center of the Hebrew Bible is not an issue (Brettler 1997; Brettler 2.012.), as Barr already observed in his magisterial summary of biblical the­ology (Barr 1999: 2.93, 2.95-96). Frymer-Kensky also sees as a given the "complexity and multivocality of Scripture" (2.000: 117). Sweeney emphasizes the dialogical nature of the Hebrew Bible, and the fact that it expresses a "variety of viewpoints" (2.012.: 32). Thus, the view that the Bible does not have a center and is a diverse, polyphonic book dominates Jewish biblical theology. Furthermore, whereas Christian theologies that do not find tight connections between the Old and New Testaments find some connections, a com­parable position is absent among Jewish scholars. Rabbinic Uterature for Jewish scholars is not analogous to the New Testament for Christian scholars-after all, rabbinic litera­ture is not part of the Jewish biblical canon. These two issues-the connection betwee:: the Old and the New Testaments and the search for a centez-may be connected, since the search for the center may have started within Christian theology on account of the NT perspective that Jesus as Christ is the Center of the OT. Again, th�re is nothing com­parable in Judaism (Zevit 2.005: 2.12).

THE CENTER OF PSALMS: CHRISTIAN AND

JEWISH VIEWS

Protestant writers, following Luther, often see the book of Psalms as a "little Bible: reflecting the larger canon and thus expect the Psalter to reftect "a biblical theology i:.

miniature" (Kraus 1986: 12.). Jewish tradition compares the five books of the Psalter :�­

the five books of the Torah, suggesting an analogy between the two (Sarna 1972.: 1307-; .

Given these comparisons, it is not surprising that the same way that many scholars lock for the center of the Bible, they look for the center of the Psalt¢r, as illustrated in an essa·.­titled "Psalms and Psalter: Paradigm for Biblical Theology" (Wllson 2.002.).

JEWISH THEOLOGY OF THE PSALMS 489

W"llson's essay outlines many of the core themes that various Christian scholars have :ound for Psalms; not surprisingly some have found aNT-related center to, Psalms. This LS most explicit in an essay by the Catholic scholar Georg Braulik. (2.004), who offers il royal-messianic interpretation of Psalms. Creach (2.011: 60-61) also connects his �ecent reading of the Psalter to Jesus. Nasuti reads Psalms eschatological}y, and Smith :992.: 412.) sees the redaction of the book as reflecting "a future centered on divine king­

ship" (see also deClaisse-Walford 1997). Wllson (2.002.: 109) also favors an eschatological :nessianic interpretation that would be hard for a Jewish scholar to adopt, suggest­mg that the "shift [from human to divine kingship] prepares the way for Jesus' pecu­liar understanding of this role as the suffering, dying kind of messiah who inaugurates L"l eternal kingdom of God." It is unclear to me, however, whether the main theme of Psalms is royal and, within that, eschatological. For example, although Midrash Tehillim ;.bows some concern for the world to come and the Messianic age (Braude xxiii-xxiv), such themes are by no means major in that work.

In the same way that general Christian theologies have found the Hebrew Bible to �e polyphonic, some recent Christian treatments have emphasized the same about the Psalms. Gillingham has noted the Psalter's "theological tensions" and observed that it .:ontains "no self-conscious creation of systematic doctrine" (1994: 2.75). She speaks of "The Many Voices in the Psalter" (1998: 187-2.31; see also Whybray 1996: 123-2.4). Hunter 2008: 108) concurs in his recent Introduction, which is why he calls one of his chapters

-Theological, Philosophical and Anthropological Reflections" (see also Tanner 2.001). Rendtorff (2.005) points out that to the extent that David is a major focus of Psalms, \·ery different depictions are offered of David through the Davidic supers¢riptions. Even scholars such as Mays, who does find a theme of sorts, notes, "In a literary reading of the Psalter one is always in danger of overbidding the material, or imagining connections and patterns" (1994: 12.6). This is true as well of Brueggemann (2.007) and Gerstenberger . 2007), who emphasize the polyphony of the Bible in generaL

This diversity makes sense from an historical perspective, given the broad consensus that Psalms was edited in stages and reflects works from many places and periods. Thus, the final product may show some systematization, but this is not fully accomplished ;Mathys 1994: 2.31-316). This explains why some biblical scholars find a theology in Psalms (Bader 1996: 1-4), while others reject that possibility (pp. 5-9). The scholar who did the most to develop interest in the editing of the Psalter and its existence as a book was Gerald Wilson. In an essay, he correctly noted that "one of the chief characteristics of the Psalms is diversity" and that the Psalter contains "an incredible amount of ten-sion" (2.002.: 101-2.).

·

Given the Jewish attitude that there is no center to the Bible, Jewish scholars, as expected, like some of their Christian counterparts, are not part of the search for the center of the Psalms. For example, Meir Weiss's (2.001) book on Psalms is titled Ideas and Beliefs in the Book of Psalms, rather than The rheology of the Psalms.' In it, he high­lights the variety of beliefs found in the Psalter concerning God as creator (pp. 2.5-2.9) and observes that the same diversity is found in other themes covered in Psalms (pp. 2.9-30). Stephen Geller similarly observes concerning the Bible's depiction of

490 THE OXFORD HAXDBOOK OF THE PSALMS

biblical religion: "the basic dichotomies had not yet been worked out, and different reli. gious orientations and traditions are placed side by side" and that "the book of Psalms displays a similar wealth of traditions. It contains practically all the disparate religious viewpoints of biblical religion, sometimes jm.:taposed to each other in a single psalm· (201 1: 208). This position is not uniquely Jewish but is the main position taken by Je\\;sh scholars concerning Psalms.

}EWISH INTERPRETATION OF THE PSALMS

As various scholars have noted, one aspect of modem Jewish biblical theology is its desire to connect with past interpretations and interpretive methods. Thus, in the sam� fashion that some Christian scholars either explicitly or implicitly offer Christologica.l interpretations, there might be an expectation that Jewish scholars would interpret the Psalms in particular ways that connect it to Jewish tradition. But aside from Jev.ish rejection of Christological interpretation (see, e.g., Signer 1983; on Christological inter­pretation see Shepperd 1995), there is no single center on which medieval Jewish inter­pretation focuses and on which modern Jev.;sh interpretation can build.

The earliest Jewish interpretation of individual psalms is found at Qumran, where three pesharim on the Psalms were unearthed (Charlesworth 2002.: 6-33). All three show the typical interpretation found among the pesharim, where the biblical text is historicized and connected to events of the author of the pes'her (Berrin 2005: 114-1;-: Charlesworth 2002). As a genre, pesher typically characterizes prophetic books, thu� the pesherim on the Psalms likely indicates that the book of Psalms was understood as prophetic by this group, and this is buttressed by the statement in 11QPs• XXVII 11 that David composed 4,050 compositions "through prophecy which was given him from before the Most High" (Sanders 1965: 92). The text of these pesharim had no influence on later Judaism, though the idea that Psalms was prophetic would have some resonance in later periods.

Another avenue of early Jewish biblical interpretation is the early Bible translations. Unfortunately, only now is serious work being done on the etegetical methods of the LXX and the Targum to the Psalms. The best-known feature of the LXX is the man­ner in which it historicizes various psalms by adding superscriptions, following those found in some MT psalms. These tie the compositions to particular events in David's life; they are added using midrashic-like methods to connect more psalms to the life of David (Slomovic 1979; Pietersma 1980). Many earlier treatments of the LXX Psalms saw it as a literal translation, but the most recent treatments are beginning to tease out, one psalm at a time, some of its theological underpinnings, though these have yet to be presented systematically (e.g., Zenger 2008; Bans 2008). Not surprisingly, the LXX of the Pentateuch influenced this translator, reflecting the Torah-centric view of Judaism (Joosten 2008). The Targum of Psalms, whose date remains unclear, follows "no overall program" other than "relating [the psalm] to a particular event or person in

JEWISH THEOLOGY OF THE PSALMS 491

[srael's history" (Fletcher and Chilton 2011: 253; see also Bernstein 2005) and, like the :.... "UC, adduces various connections between the psalm and the Torah (Fletcher-Chilton �on: 254). Such connections are expected given the Torah-centricity of the translator's •\·orld, the reference to Torah in Psalm 1, and the emphasis on Torah in Psalm 119, the 3ible's longest chapter.

Uriel Simon (1991) has surveyed some medieval Jewish approaches to Psalms. He :.otes there that Saadyah interprets the book as a second Torah, that Karaite inter­pretation saw the psalms as mandatory prophetic prayers, that Moses ibn Giqatilah •iewed them as non-prophetic prayers and poems, while Abraham ibn Ezra saw them as prophetic and sacred poetry. Rashi's commentary at various points is interested in -defus [ing] and neutraliz [ing] Christian teaching" (Gruber 200i: 131) but in places is eschatological (Signer 1983). Most medieval Jewish interpreters, following Talmudic :radition (b. Baba Batra 14b-15a), assume that David was the main author of the book. :hough some allow for later, even post -exilic psalms (Ta-Shma 199o1; Ta -Shma 1997).

One example should suffice to illustrate this diversity of Jewish interpretation of :he Psalms. The Psalter opens with asre lui'iS-"happy is the man." Both the LXX and Targum render lui'iS as the equivalent of "the man." In contrast, the Midrash on the Psalms (see Strack and Sternberger 1981: 350-52) historicizes this "man" but in typical midrashic fashion identifies him not with a single individual but rather no�s various opinions, including Adam, Noah, Abraham, the tribe of Levi, and Korah's sons (Braude 1959: 12-22) . None of these historicized interpretations, however, is picked up by the standard medieval scholars found in the Rabbinic Bible (}viiqra'ot Gedolot), such as

Rashi, Abraham ibn Ezra, and Kimhi. Within the Jewish tradition there is no center of interpretation to this psalm, as there is no center of interpretation comparable to the Christological interpretation of the Psalms (or the broader Bible) in general. Thus, even though I and others have suggested that Je\\ish biblical theology should be attuned to post-biblical Je\\ish interpretation, this principle is not helpful (except in its negative element-no Christological interpretations) when approaching the Psalms as a Jewish biblical theologian. This is because there is no one post-biblical Jewish interpretation of the book.

PSALMS AS A POLYPHONIC BOOK

I have earlier explored the Psalter's many voices concerning how God treats the righ­teous, whether God always heeds contrite prayer, and how the Psalter understands the traditions surrounding the exodus (Brettler 2012: 193-95). I expand on some of these points here and offer additional case studies that reflect on the theological diversity of the Psalter, especially in light of several recent studies of the biblical images of God that focus on the Psalms.

The first case represents anthropology rather than theology. What is the nature of humanity? Stated differently, which one of these verses is correct: Psalm 8:6(5}, which

492 THE OXFORD HAXDBOOK OF THE PSAL:\15

claims that people are " little less than dhine, and adorned . . . \\ith glory and majesty'. or 21:7 [6], where the psalmist views himself as "a worm, less than human; scorned by men, despised by people"? To my mind, these verses represent two fundamentally dif­ferent ideas about humanity, each of which may be found elsewhere in the Bible anci later Jewish literature, and one should not be privileged over the other.

Korpel and de Moor recently explored divine silence in The Silent God, where they noted that in the Bible God is silent for a \\ide variety of reasons, some of which are presented as comprehensible, others as incomprehensible (2011: 131-77). God is incom­prehensibly silent as in Psalm 22:2-3 [1-2]: "My God, my God, why have You abandoned me; why so far from delivering me and from my anguished roaring? My God, I cry by day-You answer not; by night, and I have no respite." In most ol:her Psalm texts where God is silent, a reason is given, such as God does not listen to sinners (e.g., 66:18), wha: Korpel and de Moor call "divine prudence" (e.g., 50:3, 21), or that God was sleeping (Ps 44=14 [23]).

God might be present in Psalms written before ;86, but, as Burnett notes, God coul.: also be absent in some psalms because the Temple, the center of divine presence for the individual and the community, was destroyed (2010: 138-43). Balentine has pointed ou: that most laments that ask for God to appear do not mention the person's sin and request forgiveness, suggesting that many psalmists thought God was silent even though thev did not sin (1983: 49-65). Lindstrom similarly distinguishes between Psalms that attri­bute punishment to human sin and those that highlight divine anger not motivateC. by sin (2003: 266-68). Thus, what is often imagined as the theology of retribution i!:

Psalms, that "though the misfortunes of the righteous be many, the LORD will save him

from them all" (34:20 [19] ) , is but one of many competing theologies. Even that theology, which suggests that the righteous are heeded and blessed, appears

in a variety of forms. Is such reward instant and perpetual, as suggested by the imagery of Psalm 1, which Kra5ovec uses to illustrate the principle of "The Blessedness of the Godly Life and the Futility of Godlessness" (1999: 571-76)? Or can it be de•ayed, as sug­gested by his analysis of Psalm 37 in reference to "Recompense and Retribution v .. -.n be Meted Out in Due Season" (pp. 576-8 2.), or better Psalm 91:8, which acknowledges that "though the wicked sprout like grass, though all evildoers blossom, it is only tha: they may be destroyed forever"? Perhaps Psalm 73 illustrates still another theology, "The Final Punishment of the Wicked and the Eternal Union of the Righteous with God" (pp. 582.-87 ) . Crenshaw calls this "Justice Deferred: Banking on Life Beyond the Grave ·

and finds it in 49:16 [15] and 73:2.6 (zoo;: 153-156; see Levenson 2.006). Different scholars may dispute some of the interpretations offered to particular psalms in reference to the issue of retribution, but it is clear that Kra5ovec is correct in su�ting that '"the con:­posers of the psalms did not attempt to build up any sort of theological system" (p. sSE while Boda (2.009) is incorrect in asserting that the theology of Psalm 1 is normative fo! the Psalter.

One debated area in the Psalms is whether or not God sleeps. Usually, Psalm 121.:4 ("See, the guardian of Israel neither slumbers nor sleeps!") is taken as the normativ-: view, but it is surely contradicted by 35:23, ·wake, rouse Yourself for my cause, for m,.·

JEWISH THEOLOGY OF THE PSALMS 493

claim, 0 my God and my Lord!" and 44:24[2.3], "Rouse Yourself; whr do You sleep, 0 Lord? Awaken, do not reject us forever!" These verses describe God as actually sleeping and should not be viewed simply as "vestiges of the ancient near eastern motif of the sleeping deity" (Batto 1987: 172; Mrozek and Votto, 1999; c£ McAlpine 1987: 181-99 ).

I could offer many other diverse theological views found within the Psalter: Does God prefer sacrifices (50:2.3) or prayer (51:17-19[15-17] )? Does God reside in heaven {2:4) or on the Cherubim (18:11[10] ; 80:2.[1])? Is God's kingship an occasion for the nations to rejoice (97:1) or tremble (99:1)? Was Israel chosen through the patriarchs (105:6, 9) or at the exodus (114:1-2)? These questions could be multiplied, especially by the reader who is not looking for unity, or even coherence, in the Psalter.

FOXES AND HEDGEHOGS

Although the P-Olyphonic character of Psalms is not emphasized in much Christian theo­logical reflection on the Psalter, such a view is not exclusively Jewish. It aligns well with those Christian scholars who do not believe that OT theologies should be organized around a center. Jewish theological work reaches conclusions similar to those reached by these scholars but for different reasons-reasons connected to the premise that the Bible is a polyphonic book and that the Psalms, as a microcosm of the Bible, is equally polyphonic. I am influenced by the fact that there is nothing comparable in Judaism to the Christology of the NT that might encourage me to look for unity or coherence rather than diversity. Classical Jewish texts reflect what I have called a davar acher ("another opinion") culture-where alternative views, especially in the area of theology, are juxta­posed, and there is no arbitrator (Hidary 2010 ).

Stated differently, the Hebrew Bible read apart from the NT and in relation to post-biblical Jewish interpretation reflects a "fox" culture as explained by Sir Isaiah Berlin. A fox culture, unlike a hedgehog culture, does not "relate everything to a sin­gle central vision, one system less or more coherent or articulate." Rather, it "pursue[s] many ends, often unrelated and even contradictory" (1953: 3). Changes in biblical theol­ogy in the past few decades have allowed room for foxes. Jewish biblical theology, to use Berlin's words, is "centrifugal" rather than "centripetal" (p. 3) . Being a fox is part ofbeing a Jewish biblical scholar. Some Christians have tried, but with mixed success. KraSovec, for example, explores the variety of biblical views concerning reward and punishment, but nevertheless privileges Psalm 51, which is much more important within Christianity than within Judaism. Although Goldingay says, "I want to write on the Old Testament without looking at it through Christian lenses or even New Testament lenses" (2003: 2.0 ) ,

he gives "Israel's Gospel" as the subtitle of volume 1 of that work. Many Christian schol­ars try their best to remain firmly focused on the Old Testament, forgetting the New, but often do not succeed (see, e.g., Kalimi 2.002: 149-50 ). It is not merely that they do not have the same commitment to a "variety of viewpoints" that Sweeney has as a Jew (2.012: 32.) ,

494 THE. OXFORD HAXDBOOK OF THE PSALMS

or to Frym.er-Kensky's "complexity and multivocality of Scripture" (2000: 117). Rath� there is a strong tendency, influenced by belief, toward being a hedgehog.

Given this fundamental difference, I am less sanguine than Brueggemann wha

he states in his theology that "what Jews and Christians share is much more exten.sr .. '!,

much more important, much more definitional than what divides us" (1997: 108) . . :.�

Berlin notes, hedgehogs and foxes are fundamentally different. Perhaps the deYelo:­ment of Jewish biblical theology concerning the Psalms and other works will make so::�

Christians more fox-like, and the influence of Christian biblical theology will m� some Jews more hedgehog-like. This interpenetration of different fundamental ide� may be good. But until Christian theology moves beyond the search for coherence, ;:

will remain very different from its Je\\ish parallel.

NOTES

1. From an e-mail received from Yair Zakovitch, a student of Meir Weiss, on Janu.:....-. 2, 2012: "Meir decided on the name of the book. He did not believe in the existence c·:·

theology. He believed that theology needed to be systematic, while each literary unit :::.::.�

have its own ideas and beliefs."

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bader, Giinter. 1996. Psalterium a.tfectuum palaestra: Prolegomena zu einer Theologie des Psalu-: Tlibingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck.

Balentine, Samuel E. 1983. The Hidden God: The Hiding of the Face of God in the Old Testame•::. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Barr, James. 1999. Th e Concept of Biblical Theology. London: SCM. Batto, Bernard F.1987. "The Sleeping God: An Ancient Near EastemMotifofDivine Sovereignn·."

Biblica 68: 153-77. Berlin, Isaiah. 1953. The Hedgehog and the Fox: An Essay on Tolstoy� View of Histon .

New York: Simon & Schuster. Bernstein, Moshe J. 2005. "A Jewish Reading of Psalms: Some Observations on the Methoe

of the Aramaic Targum." In Peter W. Flint and Patrick D. Miller, eds., The Book :_• Psalms: Composition and Reception. VTSup 99· Leiden: Brill, 476-504.

Berrin, Shani. 2005. "Qumran Pesharim." In Matthias Henze, ed., Biblical Interpretation .;; Qumran. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 110-33.

Boda, Mark J. 2009. A Severe Mercy: Sin and Its Remedy in the Old Testament. Wmona Lake. IN: Eisenbrauns.

Bons, Eberhard. 2008. "Translating and Annotating Ps 72 LXX." In Hans Ausloos et al., eds .. Translating a Translation: The LXX and Its Modern Translatitms in the Context of Earl_-. Judaism. Leuven, Belgium: Peeters, 133-49.

Braude, William G.1959.1heMidrash on Psalms.2 vols. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Braulik, Georg P. 2004. "Psalter and Messiah: Towards a Christological Understanding of the

Psalms in the Old Testament and the Church Fathers.» In Dirk J. Human and Cas J. A. Vos. eds., Psalms and Liturgy. JSOTSup 410. London: T & T Clark, 15-40.

JEWISH THEOLOGY OP THE PSALMS 495

Brawley, Anna. 2ooo. "Grafted In: Why Christians are Thinking about a Jewish Biblical Theology." BTB 30: 120-28.

3rettler, Marc Zvi. 1997. "Biblical History and Jewish Biblical Theology." JR 7 7: 563-83.

_. 2010. "The 'Coherence' of Ancient Texts." In Jeffrey Stackert et al.., eds., Gazing on the Deep: Ancient Near Eastern and Other Studies in Honor ofTzvi Abusch. Bethesda. MD: COL, 411-19.

___. 2012. "Psalms and Jewish Biblical Theology." In Isaac Kalimi, ed., Jewish Biblical Theology: Perspectives and Case Studies. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbraun&, 187-97.

3rueggemann, Walter. 1997. Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony. Dispute, and Advocacy. Minneapolis: Fortress.

___. 2005. "The Psalms in Theological Use: On Incommensurability and .Mutuality." In Peter W

Flint and Patrick D. Miller, eds., The Book of Psalms: Composition and Reception. VTSup 99. Leiden: Brill, 581-602.

___. 2007. "Psalms as Subversive Practice of Dialogue." In Joel S. Burnett et al. , eds., Diachronic and Synchronic: Reading the Psalms in Real Time. LHB/OTS 488. New York: T & T Clark, 3-2;.

Burnett, Joel S. 2010. Where Is God? Divine Absence in the Hebrew Bible . }l4inneapolis: Fortress. Charlesworth, -James H. 2002. The Pesharim and Qumran History: Chaos or Consensus? Grand

Rapids, Ml: Eerdmans. � ed. 2002. Pesharim, Other Commentaries, and Related Documents: The Dead

Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations 6B. Louisville: Westminster John Knox.

Creach, Jerome F. D. 1996. Yahweh as Refuge and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter. JSOT 217. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press.

--...J 2011. "The Destiny of the Righteous and the Theology of the Psalms." In Rolf A. Jacobsen, ed., Soundings in the Theology of Psalms: Perspectives and Methods in Contemporary Scholarship. Minneapolis: Fortress, 49-61.

Crenshaw, James L. 2005. Defending God: Biblical Responses to the Problem of Evil. New York: Oxford University Press.

deClaisse-Walford, Nancy L. 1997. Reading from the Beginning: The Shaping of the Hebrew Psalter. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press.

Fletcher, Bruce V. M., and Bruce Chilton. 2011. The Targums: A Critical Introduction. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press.

Flint, Peter W 2006. "Psalms and Psalters in the Dead Sea Scrolls." In James H. Charlesworth, ed., The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Waco, TX: Baylor University Pl:ess. 1:233-72.

Frymer-Kensky, Tikva. 2000. "The Emergence ofJewish Biblical Theologies." In Alice Ogden Bellis and Joel S. Kaminsky, eds., Jews, Christians, and the Theology of the Hebrew Scriptures. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 109-21.

Geller, Stephen A. 2011. "Psalms" in Michael D. Coogan, ed., The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Books of the Bible. New York: Oxford University Press, 193-212.

Gerstenberger, Erhard S. 2002. Theologies in the Old Testament. Translated by John Bowden. London: T & T Oark.

--...J 2005. "Theologies in the Book of Psalms." In Peter W. Flint and Patrick D. Miller, eds. , The Book of Psalms: Composition and Reception. VTSup 99· Leiden: Brill, 603-25.

--...J 2007. "The Psalms: Genres, Life Situation, and Theologies-Towards a Hermeneutics of Social Stratification." In Joel S. Burnett et al., eds., Diachronic and Synchronic: Reading the Psalms in Real Time. New York: T & T Oark, 81-92.

496 THE OXFORD HANDBOOK OF THE PSALMS

Gillingham, Susan E. 1994. The Poems and Psalms of the Hebrew Bible. Oxford: Oxfor.: University Press.

__, 1998. One Bible, Many Voices: Different .4.pproaches to Biblical Studies. Grand Rapids. MI: Eerdmans.

Goldingay, John. 1987. Theological Diversity and the Authority of the Old Testament. Granci

Rapids, Ml: Eerdmans. _.1003. Old Testame11t Theology. Vol. 1, Israel� Gospel. Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press. Goshen-Gottstein, M. H. 1980-81. "JeY.ish Biblical Theology and the Study ofBiblical Religion:·

Tarbiz so: 37-64. (Hebrewll.ith English summary) _. 1987. "Tanakh Theology: The Religion of the Old Testament and the Place of Jewish Biblica:

Theology:' In Patrick D. Miller et al., eds .• Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Fran;: Moore Cross. Philadelphia: Fortress, 617-44.

Greenspahn. Frederick E. 1011. "Jey,ish Theologies of Scripture." In Isaac Kalimi, ed., fewis;: Biblical Theology: Perspectives and Case Studies. Winona Lake.. IN: Eisenbrauns, 13-2.9.

Gruber, Mayer 1.1007. Rashi� Commentary on Psalms. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Socie�.­Hasel, Gerhard F. 1991. Old Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate. Granc

Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Hidary, Richard. 2.010. Dispute for the Sake of Heaven: Legal Pluralism in the Talmud. Providence.

RI: Brown Judaic Studies. Hunter, Alastair G. 2.008. An Introduction to the Psalms. London: T & T Clark. Joosten, Jan. 2.008. "The Impact of the Septuagint Pentateuch on the Greek Psalms." In Melviz:

K. H. Peters, ed., XIII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cogna;.: Studies Ljublijana. SBLSCS 55· Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 197-2.05.

Kalimi, Isaac. 2.002.. "History of Israelite Religion or Hebrew Bible/Old Testamem Theology: Jewish Interest in Biblical Theology." In Isaac Kalimi, Early Jewish Exeges:.; and Theological Controversy: Studies in Scriptures in the Shadow of Internal and Exter1:i Controversies. Assen, The Netherlands: Van Gorcum, 107-34.

____.. ed. 2.012.. Jewish Biblical Theology: Perspectives and Case Studies. Winona Lake. IN: Eisenbrauns.

Korpel, Marjo, and Johannes de Moor. 2.011. The Silent God. Leiden: Brill. Kra§ovec, Joie. 1999. Reward, Punishment, and Forgiveness: The Thinking and. Beliefs of Ancie•:;

Israel in the Light of Greek and Modern Views. VTSup 78. Leiden: Brill. Kraus, Hans-Joachim. 1986. Theology of the Psalms. Translated by Keith Crir_

Minneapolis: Augsburg. Levenson, Jon D. 1993. "Why Jews are Not Interested in Biblical Theology. " In Jon D. Levensoz:.

The Hebrew Bible, The Old Testament, and Historical Criticism: Jews and Christians in Bib lie.:. Studies. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 33-61.

_. 2006. Resurrection and the Restoration of Israel: The Ultimate Victory of the God of Life. X e-..

Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Lindstrom, Fredrik. 1003. "Theodicy in the Psalms." In Antti Laato and Johannes C. de Mooc

eds., 1heodicy in the World of the Bible. Leiden: Brill, 2.56-303. Martens, Elmer A.1997. Old Testament Theology. IBRBibliographies 13. Grand Rapids,MI: Bake: Mathys, Hans-Peter. 1994. Dichter und Beter: 1heologen aus spatalttestamentlicher Z:::

Gottingen, Germany: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Mays, James L. 1994. 1he Lord Reigns: A Theological Handbook to the Psal1"'�

Louisville: Westminster John Knox.

JEWISH THEOLOGY OF THE PSALMS 497

�fcAlpine, Thomas H. Sleep. 1987. Divine and Human in the Old Testament. JSOTSup 38. Sheffield. UK: Sheffield Academic Press.

�il"ozek. Andrzej, and Silvano Votto. 1999. "The Motif of the Sleeping Divinity:' Biblica 80: 415-19.

�asuti, Harry P. 1999. Defining the Sacred Songs: Genre, Tradition and the Post-Critical Interpretation of the Psalms. JSOTSup 2.18. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press.

___. 2.011. "God at Work in the Word: A Theology of Divine-Human Encounter in the Psalms." In Rolf A. Jacobsen, ed., Soundings in the Theology of the Psalms: Perspectives and Methods in Contemporary Scholarship. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2.7-48.

Penchansky, David 1995. The Politics of Biblical Theology: A Postmodern Reading. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press.

?ietersma, Albert. 1980. "David in the Greek Psalms." VT 30: 2.13-2.6. ?reuss, Horst Dietrich. 1995. Old Testament Theology. Translated by Leo G. Perdue. Edinburgh,

UK: T & T Clark. �atheiser, Gersh om M. H. 2.007. Mitzvoth Ethics and the Jewish Bible: The End of Old Testament

Theology. LHB/OTS 460. New York: T & T Clark. Rei£, Stefan C. 2.003. "The Bible in the Liturgy." In Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler, eds., The

Jewish Study Biple. New York: Oxford University Press, 1937-48. Rendtorff, Rolf. 2.005a. The Canonical Hebrew Bible: A Theology of the Old Testament. Translated

by David Orton. Lei den: Deo. ___, 2.005b. "The Psalms of David: David in the Psalms:' In Peter W. Flint and Patrick D. Miller,

eds., The Book of Psalms: Composition and Reception. V TSup 99· Leiden: Brill, 53-64. Sanders, J. A. 1965. The Psalms ScroU of Qumran Cave 11 (uQPsa). Discoveries in the Judean

Desert 4. Oxford: Clarendon. Sarna, Nahum M. 1972.. "Psalms, Book of." EJ 13: 1303-2.2.. Shepperd, Jerry Eugene. 1995. "The Book of Psalms as the Book of Christ: A Chris to-Canonical

Approach to the Book of Psalms." PhD diss., Westminster Theological Seminary. Signer, Michael A. 1983. "King/Messiah: Rashi's Exegesis of Psalm z." Proofttxts 3: 2.73-78. Simon, Uriel. 1991. Four Approaches to the Book of Psalms: From Saadiah Gaon to Abraham Ibn

Ezra. Translated by Lenn J. Schramm. Albany, �TY: St.'fll,j"Y Press. Slomovic, Elieser. 1979. "Toward an Understanding of the Formation of Historical Titles in the

Book of Psalms." ZAW 91: 350-80. Smith, MarkS. 1992.. "The Theology of the Redaction of the Psalter: Some Observations." ZA W

104: 408-12.. Sommer, Benjamin D. 2.012.. "Psalm 1 and the Canonical Shaping of the Jewish Scripture." In

Isaac Kalimi, ed., Jewish Biblical Theology: Perspectives and Case Studies. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns,199-2.2.1.

Strack, H. L., and Giinter Sternberger. 1991. Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash. Translated by Markus Bockmuehl. Edinburgh, UK: T & T Clark.

Sweeney, Marvin A. 2.012.. Tanak: A Theological and Critical Introduction to the Jewish Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress.

Tanner, Beth. 2.011. "Rethinking the Enterprise: What Must Be Considered in Formulating a Theology of the Psalms." In Rolf A. Jacobsen, ed., Soundings in the Theology of Psalms. Minneapolis: Fortress, 139-50.

Ta-Shma, IsraelM. 1994. "Bible Criticism in Early Medieval Franco-German." In Sara Japhet, ed., The Bible in the Light of Its Interpreters: Sarah Kami11 Memorial Volume. Jerusalem: Magnes, 453-59· (Hebrew)

498 THE OXFORD HANDBOOK OF THE PSALMS

_. 1997. "Open Bible Criticism in an Anonymous Commentary on the B ook of Psalms." Tarbiz 66: 417-2.3. (Hebrew "ith English summary)

Tov, Emanuel. 2.002.. The Texts from the ]udaean Desert: Indices and ltztroduction to the Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Series. DJD 39. Oxford: Oarendon.

Wells, M. ]ay. 2.oo2.. "Figural Representation and Canonical Unity:' In Scott ]. Hafemann, ed., Biblical Theology: Retrospect and Prospect. Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press, m-2.5.

Whybray, Norman. 1996. Reading the Psalms as a Book. JSOTSup 2.22. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press.

Wilson, Gerald H. 2002.. "Psalms and the Psalter: A Paradigm for Biblical Theology.• In Scott J. Hafemann, ed., Biblical Theology: Retrospect and Prospect. D owners Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press, 1oo-1o.

Zenger, Erich. 1998. "The Composition and Theology of the Fifth Book of Psalms, Psalms 107-145 ... /SOT So: 77-102..

___. 2.008. "t'bersetzungstechniken und Interpretation im Septuagintapsalter: Air.

Beispiel von Ps 129 [130) ." In Martin Karrer et al., eds., Die Septuaginta-Texte, Kontexte, Lebenswelten: Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal 2o. -23. Juli 2006. Tiibingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 52.3-43.

-----J ed. 2.010 . The Composition of the Book of Psalms. BETL 2.38. Leuven, Belgium: Peeters, 2.o1o. Zevit, Ziony. 2.005. "Jewish Biblical Theology: Whence? Why? And Whither?• HUCA

76: 2.89-340.