The inscription for Psalms 90 is: tpilh lmwh aiw-halohim, A prayer of Moses the man of God.
Forbes points out some likenesses (see his footnote 81 in the shared epub) between Deuteronomy 32 and Psalms 91. About 20% of the significant words are shared. And I compared with similar exclusions Psalms 90 and found about 25% of the significant words were shared. Deut. 32 is worth a read. One could 'construct' a poem and its response after this pattern, i.e. write with the language of - or after the fashion of 'Moses' (as known through the speeches of Deuteronomy). This does not mean that Moses wrote either of these psalms though this may have been taken as a given 140 years ago.
Forbes footnote 81 reads thus:
Dr. Kay remarks the following correspondences:
With ver. 2, “My God, in Him will I trust,” cf. Deut. xxxii. 37. 4, “Feather … wings,” cf. — xxxii. 11. 6, “The pestilence” (qetev)*, cf. — xxxii. 24. 8, “Shillumath,”* cf. — xxxii. 35-41, 9, “Thy dwelling-place,” cf. — xxxiii. 27. 13, “Adder . . . dragon,” cf. — xxxii. 33. 16, “My salvation,” cf. Ex. xiv. 13.
*Ed. Verse 6 - q'tb קטב is a rare root, the gloss pestilence is not in fact used here by Forbes but rather destruction. Verse 8, the root shared is wlm - repayment, also peace or wholeness, in some contexts.
Speaking personally, I find the use of the same English gloss for multiple Hebrew roots to be thoroughly confusing. Forbes doesn't like this practice either and he has my sympathy, but he didn't note the confusion about pestilence and destruction. And who can blame him - he is like many over the past 400 years, yet another victim of poetry masquerading as theology and law. Let's read it as poetry.
I am now starting to think about the claims, the internal structures, and so on that he makes. There are some lovely echoes throughout the reception of prior texts by later texts in the Tanach. And there is real experience to absorb, not a metaphysical message to ram down the throats of our neighbours or to shore up our own insecurity.
No comments:
Post a Comment