# The Psalms and Modern Scholarship



## AV1611 (Feb 24, 2008)

This is directed primarily towards seminarians, ministers and academics but everyone should feel free to add their 

What are the key "modern" readings on the Psalms? 

Is modern scholarship to be trusted on the psalms? 

How would you rate David M. Howard and Mark Futato? 

What about Gerald H. Wilson?

What are your thoughts on _[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Interpreting-Psalms-Approaches-David-Firth/dp/0830828338"]Interpreting the Psalms: Issues And Approaches[/ame]_

Recent Trends in Psalms Study by David M. Howard, Jr., Ph.D


----------



## MW (Feb 24, 2008)

I am in favour of seeing a unifying message in the Psalter and discerning how individual psalms interconnect. I am against the theory of "development" as applied to the theology of the Psalter, especially where this includes a deconstruction at the end of Ps. 89, leading to a new focus in Ps. 90. This was Wilson's original thesis, but modified after consultation with those pushing a wisdom motif for the Psalter. Regrettably, whilst modern approaches are returning to the old view of the Psalter as a unified book, they are also incorporating some of the critical assumptions concerning the text. This sometimes includes Maccabean psalms, later additions to the end of compositions (a mistake even Alexander made on occasion, e.g., Ps. 51), "folk" or "liturgical" elements, and misguided "internal" dating of Psalms (e.g., "captivity" must refer to the Babylonian captivity). My personal opinion is that all the Psalms belong to the period of David and Asaph, since (a) the historical books only speak of the composition of psalms as taking place in this period, and (b) the reformations of Hezekiah and Nehemiah were concerned with going back to the past, and self-consciously abstain from novelty.

I think Vos give us a sound approach to reading the Psalms -- the eschatological. It is truly a New Testament book, looking forward to the times when all nations will worship God in spirit and truth. The doxologies which close Pss. 41, 72, 89, and 106, with the hallel series in 146-150, are the key to understanding the theological orientation of the Psalter.


----------



## AV1611 (Feb 25, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> I am in favour of seeing a unifying message in the Psalter and discerning how individual psalms interconnect.



What do you see as the unifying message?



armourbearer said:


> I am against the theory of "development" as applied to the theology of the Psalter, especially where this includes a deconstruction at the end of Ps. 89, leading to a new focus in Ps. 90.



Could you explain this? Also, what you you make of the view that some psalms were chopped into two e.g. Ps. 1 and 2 originally being one psalm?




armourbearer said:


> Regrettably, whilst modern approaches are returning to the old view of the Psalter as a unified book, they are also incorporating some of the critical assumptions concerning the text.



Could you give some examples of critical assumptions aside from those already given? One of my questions was going to be what underlying assumptions modern scholars were making in their analysis.



armourbearer said:


> My personal opinion is that all the Psalms belong to the period of David and Asaph, since (a) the historical books only speak of the composition of psalms as taking place in this period, and (b) the reformations of Hezekiah and Nehemiah were concerned with going back to the past, and self-consciously abstain from novelty.



What about Ps. 90 and Ps. 137 or am I missing something?


----------



## R Harris (Feb 25, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> My personal opinion is that all the Psalms belong to the period of David and Asaph, since (a) the historical books only speak of the composition of psalms as taking place in this period, and (b) the reformations of Hezekiah and Nehemiah were concerned with going back to the past, and self-consciously abstain from novelty.
> 
> I think Vos give us a sound approach to reading the Psalms -- the eschatological. It is truly a New Testament book, looking forward to the times when all nations will worship God in spirit and truth. The doxologies which close Pss. 41, 72, 89, and 106, with the hallel series in 146-150, are the key to understanding the theological orientation of the Psalter.




So you do not believe that Psalm 137 was written during the Babylonian exile? Am I understanding you correctly there?

Also, do you mean the Hallel as Psalms 115-118 instead of 146-150?


----------



## MW (Feb 25, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> What do you see as the unifying message?



In a word -- "the kingdom of God is present in a worshipping community in covenant with God, advances through the sufferings of His faithful servants, and triumphs in the song of praise sounded forth by all nations."



AV1611 said:


> Could you explain this? Also, what you you make of the view that some psalms were chopped into two e.g. Ps. 1 and 2 originally being one psalm?



Wilson's first thesis was that Davidic kingship was in tatters by the end of Ps. 89 and required a new focus, which is found in the ancient theology of Moses in Ps. 90, and especially in the kingship of God, the overt theme of Pss. 93-99. Other scholars posit a democratising movement. Still others stress eschatology in terms of "final events." Others like to psychologise and speak of the Psalter in terms of orientation, disorientation and reorientation. In each of these approaches it becomes impossible to speak of a single theme, but some historical or psychological disruption takes place calling on the community of Israel to reinvent themselves.

Psalm 2 is called Psalm 2 in the NT. While there is evidence that these formed a couplet (e.g., the inclusio marked by "blessed" in 1:1, and 2:12), there is nothing which suggests they were originally a single Psalm. IN fact, they serve as a fitting introduction to the Psalter with the first Psalm explicitly introducing the element of "law" and the second Psalm implicitly outlining the "prophetic" program for kingdom of God.



AV1611 said:


> Could you give some examples of critical assumptions aside from those already given? One of my questions was going to be what underlying assumptions modern scholars were making in their analysis.



Most of the modern movement is inspired by Brevard Childs' Process Canonical Approach, in which critical questions are ignored and the text is accepted as is for the purpose of understanding the message of the book in its present shape. The problem with this approach is that the text is often understood to have been settled in a later period. So many of the modern scholars are looking at the unity of the Psalter but doing so from a second temple perspective, and one which allows a canonical settlement in the Maccabean period. Here the titles are accepted, not as original, but only as an editorial device.



AV1611 said:


> What about Ps. 90 and Ps. 137 or am I missing something?



Ps. 90 is a "prayer" of Moses, not a "psalm." Hence the thought might be Moses' while the composition belongs to the Psalmist. The fact that the title speaks of "the man of God" indicates a second composer. Ps. 137 speaks of Babylon, but also of Edom. There is no reason why a literal referent should be imposed on the text. It might be mystical Babylon; and hence serves a prophetic function in terms of Israel's future.


----------



## MW (Feb 25, 2008)

R Harris said:


> So you do not believe that Psalm 137 was written during the Babylonian exile? Am I understanding you correctly there?



See the fourth paragraph in the above post.



R Harris said:


> Also, do you mean the Hallel as Psalms 115-118 instead of 146-150?



In Psalms studies hallel psalms are grouped according to the "praise ye the Lord" beginning and/or ending. It's not a reference to the Jewish tradition.


----------



## Augusta (Feb 25, 2008)

What is a good book for getting an overview of the structure and themes of the Book of Psalms?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Feb 25, 2008)

Augusta said:


> What is a good book for getting an overview of the structure and themes of the Book of Psalms?



I don't claim to be an expert in this area by any means (and my focus is not on "modern scholarship"), so consider my input as worth only  And you may be familiar with some of these, but perhaps they will be of use to others as well. 

But, among other works, I would recommend the introduction to William S. Plumer's commentary on the Psalms. His commentary overall is invaluable (though I disagree with him on the subject of musical instruments on worship). The introduction is a very helpful overview of the themes of the Psalter and other important considerations. 

Given that the Psalms were so influential on Calvin, who called them "an anatomy of all parts of the soul," _Calvin's Theology of the Psalms_ by Herman Selderhuis is worth reading. 

William Binnie's treatise on the psalms is also invaluable. 

Also see William Romaine.

And, as Matthew Henry notes concerning the Book of Psalms, "1. It is of use to be sung;" "2. It is of use to be read and opened by the ministers of Christ, as containing great and excellent truths, and rules concerning good and evil;" and "3. It is of use to be read and meditated upon by all good people." 

Therefore, the use of the Psalms in worship, specifically praise, is a major consideration and for that I would highly recommend _The Psalms in Worship_ by John McNaugher, along with Thomas Ford. 

For commentaries/studies on the Psalms, my favorites are Matthew Poole, Matthew Henry, John Calvin, William Plumer, Andrew Bonar, David Dickson, George Horne, John Brown of Haddington, Charles Spurgeon, J.A. Alexander, Henry Ainsworth and others. 

For meditations on the Psalms and historical perspective on their meaning in life, I like Richard Baker, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Rowland Prothero and John Ker. 

Also see this thread:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f41/theology-psalter-21466/


----------



## MW (Feb 25, 2008)

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> Augusta said:
> 
> 
> > What is a good book for getting an overview of the structure and themes of the Book of Psalms?
> ...



Binnie's work is where I would begin, followed by Geerhardus' Vos' Eschatology of the Psalter, and then followed up by a commentary like J. A. Alexander. These suggestions are limited to structure and themes; but if one is more concerned with devotional content then Matthew Henry, Spurgeon's Treasury of David or Plumer's "Doctrinal and Practical Remarks" would be better.


----------



## AV1611 (Feb 28, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> Most of the modern movement is inspired by Brevard Childs' Process Canonical Approach, in which critical questions are ignored and the text is accepted as is for the purpose of understanding the message of the book in its present shape. The problem with this approach is that the text is often understood to have been settled in a later period. So many of the modern scholars are looking at the unity of the Psalter but doing so from a second temple perspective, and one which allows a canonical settlement in the Maccabean period. Here the titles are accepted, not as original, but only as an editorial device.



So reading in between the lines here, am I correct in assuming you are rejecting the view that the order of the Psalter is post-exillic determined by Ezra _et al_ under the guidence of the Holy Ghost?

Also, what do you think of Derek Kidner's commentary on the Psalms?


----------



## AV1611 (Feb 28, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> In a word -- "the kingdom of God is present in a worshipping community in covenant with God, advances through the sufferings of His faithful servants, and triumphs in the song of praise sounded forth by all nations."



Pasted to my blog.


----------



## MW (Feb 28, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> So reading in between the lines here, am I correct in assuming you are rejecting the view that the order of the Psalter is post-exillic determined by Ezra _et al_ under the guidence of the Holy Ghost?
> 
> Also, what do you think of Derek Kidner's commentary on the Psalms?



Yes, I reject that "acceptable" view as well as the "unacceptable view" that it was compiled even later. Hopefully by putting it in this way I won't be perceived as condemning Calvin or others, while at the same time I'm trying to clean up some of the mess left by a simplistic reading of the text.

Kidner's commentary is good evangelical scholarship. It's of the old atomistic type, taking the Psalms one by one, classifying them according to content, entering into critical discussions of meanings of words and idioms, identifying "Messianic" elements, and providing some basic application with the belief that the Psalms are a kind of spiritual psychology. That's all good as far as it goes, and all the reformed and evangelical commentaries are helpful in this way. But I think he fails to answer the question raised in this thread concerning the canonical authority and message of the book as a whole.


----------



## MW (Feb 28, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > In a word -- "the kingdom of God is present in a worshipping community in covenant with God, advances through the sufferings of His faithful servants, and triumphs in the song of praise sounded forth by all nations."
> ...



Humbling!


----------

