The Psalter (Forbes 1888) #5

Continuing the examination - slowly - of Forbes work on the Psalter from 1888.

Forbes begins to sketch his view of the overall structure of the Psalter. 

As Book I. began with the inauguration on his throne of the Lord's Anointed King and Son, and the predicted conquest of all his opposing foes which David's warlike reign imperfectly prefigured, so Book II. closes with the companion picture (in Ps. lxxii.) of the final establishment of Messiah's empire as a kingdom of " peace and righteousness "—of which Solomon's peaceful reign was a faint adumbration). The first two Amen Books are thus linked together, and their principal subject clearly indicated by its being placed first and last. But their connection and mutual bearing are still further signified by the note appended to their close, "The prayers of David, the son of Jesse, are ended." The obvious meaning of these words, in the position they hold, is that David's highest aspirations—what formed " all his salvation and all his desire " (2 Sam. xxiii. 5)—will be answered when the consummation, anticipated in the immediately preceding Psalm, arrives.

Forbes doesn't seem to connect Psalms 1 and 2. The focus continues on the king. The capitalization above is 'reading in' to the text.  

This necessitates us to regard Ps. lxxii. as primarily, in the idea of the author, a prayer for the coming of that perfect kingdom of "righteousness and peace," the expectation of which had been awakened by the promises made by God to David, with the tacitly implied petition, no doubt secondarily, that Solomon's reign (whether the Psalm was written by him or for him) might, in its imperfect measure, foreshadow it. The Messianic import of the Psalm is fully borne out by several expressions in it which can apply only to the Messiah, as, e.g., the universality of the King's dominion, and of the homage paid him by " all kings and all nations " (vers. 8-11), by the correct interpretation of the generally misconstrued terms of ver. 15, but above all by the closing words in ver, 17, " all nations shall bless themselves in him " (i.e. adore him as the foundation and source of all their blessings)—words which manifestly point back to the crowning blessing to Abraham (" In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth bless themselves," Gen. xxii. 18),—vouchsafed to him in that supreme moment of his life when he had just exhibited the highest instance of faith and obedience ever shown by a mere man, and to which we cannot doubt the Saviour alluded when He said, "Abraham saw my day, and was glad" (John viii. 56). 

The appeal to the Akeda here is not without ambiguity. Again, Forbes is reasoning entirely from the point of view of the NT attitudes to Abraham.

When next we turn to Book III. (lxxiii.-lxxxix.), we find strong confirmation that all three Amen Books are so arranged as to create an earnest expectation and longing for the coming of the Messianic King. With the closing Psalm (lxxii.) of Book II., for which Solomon's reign gave occasion, the monarchy" in its visible form reached its culmination and highest earthly splendour. With Book III. begins its decline and fall. Dire forebodings of the final catastrophe follow each other in ominous succession (see particularly Psalms lxxiv., lxxix., lxxx.), until at last in Psalm lxxxix. the end of the earthly kingdom is close at hand, and the desponding lament is heard, " Thou hast cast off and rejected ; Thou hast been wroth with Thine anointed ; Thou hast profaned his crown even to the ground " (vers. 38, 39), Yet, nevertheless, the Psalmist and the Church are only the more resolved to hold fast to the covenanted truth of God's word, " The mercies of Jehovah for ever will I sing " (ver. 1), and all the glorious promises made to David are repeated and dwelt upon at great length, and God's power and faithfulness invoked for their certain fulfilment (vers. 1-37). 

If, now, we regard all three Amen Books in their connection, not only does the Messianic King meet us at the beginning and end, but when we apply the parallelistic rule already referred to, we are struck with finding the central subject of the whole to be the same, marked in the clearest manner. The eighty-nine Psalms which constitute the three Amen Books are divided into two equal halves by Ps. xlv., there being two alphabets (2x22) of Psalms on the one side and two on the other. The purpose of those who finally arranged the Psalter cannot be mistaken in their selecting for the central position a Psalm beginning with the words, " My heart overfloweth with a goodly matter ; I speak the things which I have made touching the King" (Ps. xlv. 1). Thus the Messianic King meets us at the beginning, the middle, and the end of the Amen Books, and the Hebrew word melech = " king," or malach = " is king," never again appears in the Psalter applied to the Messianic King ; henceforth the King is Jehovah. Regarded even by itself, Ps. xlv. points to one " fairer than the children of men," endowed with " grace, majesty, righteousness, and the oil of gladness above his fellows," and to whom are ascribed a "throne [enduring] for ever and ever," and the title of " God " (ver. 6)—language, surely, which even in its first conception looks higher than to a Solomon or any merely human sovereign. ([fn]Even, therefore, if we must find an historical occasion for every Psalm (a very questionable assumption), it need be but as suggesting to the Psalmist a higher theme, which forms his direct subject.[/fn]) But whatever may have been its first import, so soon as it was chosen to form part of the devotional Psalm-Book of Israel, and placed in the remarkable relation it holds to the opening and closing Psalms of the Amen Books, the Messianic interpretation becomes alone admissible—which, too, is also that of the Chaldee Paraphrast, and even of the later Jews before, and some time after, the coming of Christ. With Ps. lxxxix., the closing Psalm of the three Amen Books, is evidently meant to be concluded the series of earthly representatives of David's royal race, thus bringing us down to the commencement of the Babylonish captivity. The next. Book IV. (xc.-cvi.), ought therefore to refer to the captivity, and to have as its counterpart, or corresponding prophetical book, Isa. xl—lxvi. with its consolatory purpose, " Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your God "—an inference corroborated by the striking similarity of many of the Psalms in Book IV. to the later chapters of Isaiah (cf. Ps. xcvi. 1 with Isa. xlii. 10; Ps. xcviii. 4, 8, with Isa. xlix. 13 and lv. 12). One whole line in Ps. xcviii. 3, "All the ends of the earth have seen the salvation of our God," is identical in the Hebrew with Isa. lii. 10.

Would you say that the Psalms are ultimately anti-monarchy, rather than pro-Messiah? I am very much in favour of what Jesus Christ (=Messiah) shows us, but I am against the tendency to use such example and instruction as a club, or a threat, or anything else that smacks of the human will-to-power. 

OK - in the next post let's look at some of these things Forbes invites us to look at. Particularly the connections between Book 4 and Isaiah. 

By the way, I may be out to lunch, but I have not assumed that we only hear of the exile beginning in Book 4. Psalms 42 and 43 are exilic laments over the three interruptions of temple worship (at least according to Rashi). I doubt that Forbes will cite a single Jewish interpretation in this essay. 1888 is at the height of the power of Christendom and the Shoah is on the horizon. This is the problem with the will-to-power of triumphalism.

For parallelistic I suggest we read chaistic or circular because he is describing the search for the centre of a structure defined by numbers or words. I.e. nothing to do with the original definition of parallelism as I understand it. [see the use of this odd word by Adele Berlin here. 

Parallelism is the most prominent rhetorical figure in ancient Near Eastern poetry, and is also present, although less prominent, in biblical prose. It can be defined as the repetition of the same or related semantic content and/or grammatical structure in consecutive lines or verses. For example, in Ps 103:10 we find that both the sense and the structure of the first line are echoed, in different words, in the second:

Not according to our sins did he deal with us;

And not according to our transgressions did he requite us.

But, while the definition cited here works well for the most part, and the example of Ps 103:10 would be universally accepted as a parallelism, there is no consensus on precisely what parallelism is or how it works, and therefore no absolute criterion for identifying parallelisms. As we move farther away from identity or similarity between the two lines, more questions arise and there is more disagreement about the identification of a parallelism. For instance, some scholars would consider Ps 106:35 to be a parallelism while others would insist that it is not.

They intermingled with the nations;

They learned their ways.

What does seem certain, though, is that parallelism is a matter of relationships—between lines and/or parts of lines. 

You might want to read on further in Adele's paper, particularly since she quickly shows that Lowth's three categories are too few.

Also Michael Legaspi on Lowth here.]

Michael has a description of Lowth's intent (P 486)

 ... Whether the interpreter decides in favor of an extant reading or creates a new one through conjectural emendation, his or her final responsibility is to offer a sound, rationally defensible reading. The reading will be successful to the extent that it is “agreeable to the context, to the exigencies of the place, to parallel and similar passages, to the rules and genius of the language, and to the laws of sound and temperate criticism.”

Much is at stake in the production of a good English translation. For Lowth, translation comprises all of the interpretive virtues that contribute to good scholarship: a judicious temperament, philological rigor, poetic sensibility, methodological transparency, and a critical stance toward tradition. Put simply, a good translator is a good interpreter. Yet, the good translator is good in another sense: he or she is also useful. Well translated, the Bible is restored to the profitable use of the Christian public.

Good advice for any age.