Introduction
The table below presents a summary analysis of the Psalms of Degrees (Ascent). Of course, one cannot hope to do justice to the psalms in such a short piece but the objective is not an in-depth exegesis but, rather, a consideration of the main arguments for and against the late dating of these psalms. This article (and the previous article) places the Psalms of Degrees in the reign of Hezekiah with the Assyrian crisis forming the background to the Psalms.
Dating the Old Testament
Many arguments for a late date (postexilic) are based on linguistic grounds and the table column below ‘Post-Exilic Dating’ reproduces Craig Davis’ comments found in Dating the Old Testament, (New York: RJ Communications, 2007) pages 355-360. Davies summarises the most important scholarly arguments regarding the date of the psalms.
| Ps. | Post-Exilic Dating | The Reign of Hezekiah |
| 120 |
The author speaks with the voice of a Jew in the Diaspora, away from Jerusalem. This first Psalm of Ascents sets the stage for a pilgrimage to Jerusalem described in the subsequent Psalms. This suggests a post-exilic date.
|
This is thought to be a pilgrimage psalm because it mentions “dwelling in Meshech and the tents of Kedar” (120:5). This assumes that the Psalm is concerned with deportees to regions beyond Babylon but apart from the fact that this also occurred during the Hezekiah’s period,[1] most commentators ignore the poetic intent of “Meshech”, which means “drawing out” the same root is used to describe the drawing out of the Passover Lamb (Exod. 12:21) and for “drawing out seed” (Ps 126:6). Kedar is associated with “darkness” and “mourning” (tents of darkness). The picture emerges of being drawn out for death like the Passover Lamb and the suffering servant of Isaiah 53. The situation describes an individual (Hezekiah) advocating peace (120:7) while his opponent (Sennacherib) wants war (2 Kgs. 18:14, 19; 2 Chron. 32:1-3; Isa. 36:3, 5; 38:17). The Psalmist is in distress and facing illness, blasphemy, deceit and internal betrayal. The context of the Psalm is war not pilgrimage. Nothing in the Psalm suggests a post-exilic date. |
| 121 | There is no setting for this Psalm, except that it is a Psalm of Ascents looking forward to a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. The phrase, “Maker of heaven and earth” (v. 2) ties this Psalm in with other Book 5 Psalms (115:15, 124:8, 134:3 and 146:6) | Psalm 121 is thematically similar to Isaiah 40; Lift up your eyes (40:26; 120:1); comfort (40:1); help (Ps. 121:2); creator (40:28), maker of heaven and earth (121:2); faint and weary (40:28), sleep and slumber (121:4); a shepherd (40:11), thy keeper (121:5). The switch between first (‘I” and ‘my’ vv. 1, 2) and third person singular (‘thee’ and ‘thy’ vv.3-8) pronouns in psalm 121 makes it probable that Isaiah himself is speaking in 121:3-8. Thematic Isaiah connections point to the Hezekiah period. |
| 122 | Some Septuagint mss. do not assign Psalm 122 to David. The phrase “house of David” in v. 5 sounds like a pre-exilic but post- David phrase. Thrones and palaces in Jerusalem sound pre-exilic, and the idea of multiple tribes going up to Jerusalem (v. 4) does seem to fit with the united monarchy period more than any other. In v. 4 we have the first appearance in Psalms of an attached Hebrew “shin” particle (X) used as a relative pronoun. The early spelling of ‘David’ (dwID‘) is used in the attribution, but the later spelling is used in v. 5. The evidence on this Psalm is mixed, so we date it tentatively to the latter part of David’s reign, based on the attribution and the mention of multiple tribes, with a later rework in the post-exilic period. | The phrase “house of David” could well have originated with David (cf. 2 Sam. 7:26, “house of thy servant David”) and the phrase “house of the Lord” could refer either to the Tabernacle (David’s era) or the Temple (Hezekiah’s era). The plural “thrones of the house of David” (122:5) probably refers to priestly judgement thrones established by the Davidic dynasty to administer justice (Deut. 17:8-9; cf. 2 Chron. 19:8). Isaiah associates Jerusalem with the teaching of the law and justice (Isa. 2:3-4).[2] The Hebrew “shin” particle (X) is not necessarily an indicator of “lateness”[3] but of northern Israelite origins, similarly the alternative spelling of ‘David’ indicates a northern Israelite dialect.[4] It seems then that we have a Davidic psalm that has been reworked by Hezekiah’s men (Prov. 25:1), who included northern Israelite scribes from “agrarian” and “border areas” such as Galilee of the nations (Isa. 9:1) and Ephraim and Manasseh (2 Chron. 30:1). Hezekiah themes include cult centralization and tribal unity and Isaiah’s prayer for the peace of Jerusalem (Isa. 62:6-7) which echoes Ps. 122:6. Hephzibah in Isa. 62:4 is the name of Hezekiah’s bride in 2 Kgs. 21:1. |
| 123 |
Psalm 123 is dated to the exile due to God being enthroned in heaven (v. 1 –but not Zion), and because the Psalmist sees the community as being “greatly filled with contempt” (v. 3). An attached “shin” particle is in v. 2.
|
The argument by omission is weak as enthronement of God in heaven does not exclude enthronement in Zion, Solomon understands that the shekinah is present in both places simultaneously as the earthly cherubim is a symbolic depiction of the heavenly throne and even the “heaven of heavens” could not contain God (1 Kgs. 8:27, 30). Therefore reference to “enthronement in heaven” does not imply that the Temple has already been destroyed. When Hezekiah received the letter from Sennacherib’s messengers he went to the house of the Lord (the throne in Zion) and prayed; “O Lord of hosts, God of Israel, who art enthroned above the Cherubim. Thou art the God, thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth. Thou hast made heaven and earth…” (Isa. 37:16). Compare Ps. 123:1; “…to thee I lift up my eyes, O thou who art enthroned in the heavens”. The contempt in this Psalm refers to the ridicule and blasphemy perpetrated by Rabshakeh, “Against whom hast thou exalted thy voice, and lifted up thine eyes on high? Even against the Holy One of Israel? (2 Kgs. 19:22; Isa. 37:23). |
| 124 | Psalm 124 is attributed to David and has no significant evidence for dating. The existence of three “shin” particles implies that this Psalm was reworked in the post-exilic period into its current form. VV. 3-5 and 7 have 7 perfect tense verbs and no imperfects, a ratio representative of Classical rather than Early Biblical Hebrew. The phrase, “maker of heaven and earth” (v. 8) ties this Psalm in with other Book 5 Psalms (115:15, 121:2, 134:3 and 146:6). | The attribution may possibly be generic (i.e. for the Davidide). The existence of “shin” particles indicates northern influence[5] and the verb ratio is inconclusive for dating purposes.[6] The phrases are descriptive of the Assyrian crisis: “The Lord… was on our side” (124:1); “Immanuel” (Isa. 7:14; 8:8, 10) – “God is with us” (124:2); “men rose up against us” (124:3); “their wrath was kindled against us” (124:5); “the proud waters” (cf. Assyrian ‘flood waters’ in Isa. 8:7, 8) and (124:7); “Our soul is escaped as a bird out of the snare of the fowlers: the snare is broken, and we are escaped”. The cylinder, or prism, of Sennacherib has the following statement: “Hezekiah himself like a caged bird, within Jerusalem, his royal city, I shut in.” |
| 125 | This Psalm’s perspective on the immovability of Mt Zion and God’s protection of his people there could fit with a pre-exilic time, perhaps after the failed Assyrian invasion. However, it is assigned to Haggai in the Peshitta, an early Aramaic translation, and it is unlikely (though not impossible) that a tradition of later authorship would develop over an earlier text. The Hebrew for “upright in heart” in v. 4 (~twblb ~yrXyl) is not an expected form and probably late, as the earlier Psalms which have the same meaning use a construct form (7:10 [Heb 7:11], 11:2, 32:11, 36:10 [Heb 36:11] and 94:15). Earlier passages that say “cannot be moved” (v. 1) use “bal” (lb) instead of “lo” (al) as a negation (Pss 10:6, 46:5 [Heb 46:6], 93:1, 96:10, Prov 12:3). |
Zion emerged inviolable from the Assyrian crisis but was destroyed by Babylon therefore this Psalm cannot be post exilic. The “rod of the wicked” (125:3) is the Assyrian rod mentioned by Isaiah; “O my people that dwell in Zion, be not afraid of the Assyrian: he shall smite thee with a rod… for yet a very little while, and the indignation shall cease” (Isa. 10:24, 25). Those who turn aside (125:3), refers to the supporters of Shebna (a Phoenician). In Isaiah’s rebuke, he repeated the word “here” three times, indicating that Shebna was a foreigner and did not belong in the courts of Judah (Isa. 22:16). According to Rabbinic tradition (Sanhedrin 26a), Shebna the scribe, influenced the royal court and attempted to persuade the people of Jerusalem to surrender to the Assyrians. Whatever the validity of the tradition, it is obvious that there were elements in the royal court who took advantage of Hezekiah’s illness. Peace (125:5) shall be upon Israel fits Hezekiah’s times (see 2 Kgs 20:19; Isa. 39:8). The idiom “in (the) heart” appears 114x in the OT, 24x in the Psalms alone. The phrase “upright in heart” is found 9x in the Psalms (out of 14 occurrences in the OT) but the form for “upright in their hearts” is only found in Ps. 125:4. It may be an example of northern usage rather than an indication of lateness:
“To negate nouns and verbs, Phoenician/Punic used ya ’y/’īl and lb bl/bal/ (along with the compound lbya ’ybl /’ībal/), as opposed to Hebrew al lō. For a Hebrew example from a prophet active in the north, see ‘Wrm.ayO*-lb;W ~b’êb’l.li ù-bal-yōmrù li-lbäbäm ‘and they do not say in their hearts’ (Hos. 7.2).”[7]
“…..scholars have long noted that Deuteronomy has a strong preference for lebab as “heart,” while Jeremiah strongly prefers leb. Jeremiah’s preference is shared by, among others, Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Judges and Samuel, and hence is not obviously a sign of “lateness.” Among the LBH books, Chronicles and Daniel align with Deuteronomy in preferring lebab, whereas the other LBH and LBH-related books prefer lebab……this data cannot be used in support of the chronological theory, it has been generally ignored by language scholars.”[8] |
| 126 | This short Psalm can be dated with high confidence. The reference to a return from captivity (v. 1) while knowing that the exile is still a reality for many (v. 4) places this Psalm in the early post-exilic period. This Psalm is also assigned to Haggai in the Peshitta | The “returned captives” may refer to the release of the 200,150 deportees with the defeat of Assyria, but more probably the phrase “turn again our captivity” (126:1, 4) is intended figuratively as the RSV/NIV/NRS/NIB versions render the Hebrew dynamically as “restore our fortunes”. Those who were held “captive” during the siege of Jerusalem or held “captive” by death (Hezekiah) had their fortunes restored.[9] The reference to sowing, reaping and precious seed (126:6) was literally applicable to the devastated land (2 Kgs. 19:29; Isa. 37:30; v. 31 a Jubilee? cf. Lev. 25:10) but restoration of fortunes was particularly relevant to Hezekiah who nearly died without an heir to the throne which would have invalidated the Davidic covenant; “Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand” (Isa. 53:10). The returnees had ‘songs of joy’ (126:2 NIB/NIV) on their tongues; “The Lord was ready to save me: therefore we will sing my songs (Hezekiah’s) to the stringed instruments all the days of our life in the house of the Lord” (Isa. 38:20). |
| 127 | This Psalm is attributed to Solomon and leaves virtually no additional evidence for dating. | The prepositional prefix l’ is the same as the ascription of David in the title of Psalm 124. The ascription indicates the content (concerning Solomon) and not necessarily the authorship of the Psalm. The phrase “so he giveth his beloved sleep” (127:2) echoes Solomon’s throne name (2 Sam. 12:25) Jedidiah (‘beloved of Yahweh’) and 127:1 is stylistically similar to Proverbs (cf. Prov. 8:15; 16:9; 21:30, 31), but that is not unexpected, as Proverbs was edited by ‘Hezekiah’s men’ (Prov. 25:1). Psalm 127 is a reflection on 2 Samuel 7, where David’s desire to build a “house” for God was countered by Yahweh establishing a covenant concerning “David’s house”. Although the initial outworking of the covenant was satisfied by Solomon the promise presaged far reaching dynastic (and messianic) outcomes: “thou hast spoken also of thy servant’s house for a great while to come” (2 Sam. 7:19) and, “bless the house of thy servant that it may continue forever before thee” (v. 29). However, the reign of Hezekiah almost saw the end of the dynasty and the annulment of Davidic hope. This Psalm speaks in dynastic terms of (127:1); building the house (127:4); the heritage of children and of children supporting their father when he speaks in the gate with his enemies (127:5); a luxury denied Hezekiah when he was childless and dying (cf. “answer him not” in 2 Kings 18:36; Isa. 36:21). |
| 128 | This Psalm looks to be connected to Psalm 125 due to the repeated blessing, “Peace be upon Israel” (125:5 and 128:6) and the use of Zion and Jerusalem together (125:12 and 128:5) | Psalm 128 sets a scene of tranquility, prosperity and peace in the aftermath of the Assyrian crisis. Despite the prediction that his children would serve as eunuchs in Babylon, Hezekiah believed that Yahweh would suspend his sentence (Isa. 39:7-8) and he expresses the desire to live long enough to see his descendants prospering (128:6): “Yes, may you see your children’s children” (NKJV) and, “may you live to see your children’s children” (NIB). Hezekiah saw the birth of a son (Manasseh) but not his grandchildren. The idiomatic “eating the labour of thine hands” (128:2) refers to Jacob’s trials: “God hath seen mine affliction and the labour of my hands, and rebuked thee yesternight” (Gen. 31:42). Unlike Laban the Syrian, who was warned not to speak either ‘good or bad’ to Jacob (Gen. 31:29), Assyrian propaganda threatened Jerusalem with both eating faeces and drinking urine during the siege (2 Kgs. 18:27), or surrendering and eating figs and drinking clean water (v. 31). Yahweh “saw their affliction’ (like he did with Jacob) and rebuked the Assyrian overnight (2 Kgs. 19:35), instead of defeat, the people of Jerusalem would eat the labour of their hands. |
| 129 | This Psalm gives few clues as to its date. Psalms 129 131 seem to be connected, as they all contain exhortations directed to Israel. “Shin” relative pronouns appear in vv. 6 and 7. | A comparison with Isaiah establishes the Assyrian crisis as the context of Psalm 129: “Let all those who hate Zion be put to shame and turned back. Let them be as the grass on the housetops, which withers before it grows up, with which the reaper does not fill his hand, nor he who binds sheaves, his arms” (Ps. 129:5-7). Compare: “Therefore their inhabitants were of small power, they were dismayed and confounded: they were as the grass of the field, and as the green herb, as the grass on the housetops, and as corn blasted before it be grown up. But I know thy abode, and thy going out, and thy coming in, and thy rage against me” (Isa. 37:27-28). The Assyrians had “ploughed” the land with their burnt earth policy (cf. Joel 2:3) and sown a harvest of devastation, Hezekiah empathised with the plight of his people and lying on his death bed it felt like the Assyrian “plough” had cut furrows down his very back (129:3). However, it is poignant that the Psalm ends (129:8) with the harvest blessing pronounced by Hezekiah’s ancestor Boaz (Ruth 2:4) demonstrating that Yahweh is able to raise seed, even to the dead. |
| 130 | This Psalm gives few clues as to its date. The address to “Israel” alone (not Judah) in v. 7 argues against a divided kingdom or a Judah-alone pre-exilic date. |
Hezekiah’s reformation sought a united Israel with the cult centralised in Jerusalem, so this Psalm fits the time period. Moreover, the Psalm could almost be a summary of Hezekiah’s crisis: 1. Hezekiah’s sore weeping (Isa. 38:3; 2 Kgs. 20:3), as from out of a grave or pit (Isa. 38:18). 2. “Remember now, O Lord….” (Isa. 38:3; 2 Kgs. 20:3). “Bow down thine ear and hear” (2 Kgs. 19:16). 3-4. “For thou hast cast all my sins behind thy back” (Isa. 38:17). 5-6. The certainty in Hezekiah’s mind that, unless God intervene, his life will end by the morning (Isa. 38:12-13, RSV). 7. Hezekiah’s personal hope is the nation’s hope as well. “Deliver thou us out of his hand” (2 Kgs. 19:19). 8. “The Lord was ready to save me” (Isa. 38:20) and “the remnant that are left” (2 Kings 19:4). |
| 131 | This short Psalm is dated to the time of David based solely on the attribution. We are also assigning this Psalm to the collection of reworked Psalms due to this Psalm’s association with Psalms 129 and 130. Notice the phrase “O Israel hope in the Lord” in 131:3 and 130:7. | The association of this Psalm with 129 and 130 would place it in the same context as those Psalms (Hezekiah). The psalm also seems to correspond with the historical situation of David related in 1 Samuel 16-18, but the sentiments are also wholly appropriate to Hezekiah. We are most certainly dealing with original Davidic material that has been reworked to fit the circumstances of Hezekiah. |
| 132 | This Psalm is clearly post Davidic, due to the prayer asking the Lord to remember David (v. 1 and following). It is also clearly pre-exilic, with the emphasis on the Davidic covenant and the mention of the Ark of the Covenant in v. 8 (the ark disappears during the exile). The older short spelling of David’s name is used throughout the Psalm. The early relative pronoun “zo” (wz) appears in v. 12. The phrase “Mighty One of Jacob” from vv. 2 and 5 is also in Isa. 49:26 and 60:16 (and Gen. 49:24). | The context clearly demands a time somewhere between David and the exile (as suggested by Davis). The appeal to “remember David” employs the same Hebrew l’ prefix as the attribution of David suggesting reference to the content (not the authorship) of the psalm. Psalm 132 is a remembrance by Hezekiah of past Davidic glory under a united kingdom, a lament for present distress, and a prophecy of future blessing. The early relative pronoun “zō” (wz) confirms the early origins of the psalm and possible northern influence.[10] The phrase “Mighty One of Jacob” employed by Isaiah confirms the time period (Hezekiah) as does the tribal affiliation of the original blessing.[11] |
| 133 | This is one of the Psalms that we put in the category of Davidic/reworked. The reference to Mount Hermon in v. 3 supports the idea that the Psalm originated with David, since Hermon was lost to the Davidic monarchy as early as the time of Rehoboam (931 BCE). The two “shin” relative pronouns in vv. 2 and 3 are evidence of later language. | This is probably a “Davidic/reworked” psalm but the reference to Hermon is not necessarily an anachronism as it is intended as a northern counterweight to the southern Zion. The Psalm encompasses the land from north to south with the Hezekiah thematic of unity and brotherhood of worship (at Zion). The original Davidic setting seems to be a year of Jubilee blessing and the anointing of a new high priest (Zadok?) which corresponds with the Jubilee sign accorded Hezekiah. [12] |
| 134 | This short Psalm gives few clues as to its date of writing. The phrase, “Maker of heaven and earth” (v. 3) ties this Psalm in with other Book 5 Psalms (115:15, 121:2, 124:8 and 146:6) |
The phrase “Maker of heaven and earth” (v. 3) reflects Hezekiah’s response to Rabshakeh’s blasphemy (2 Kgs 19:12): “Thou art the God, even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth; thou hast made heaven and earth” (2 Kgs 19:15; 2 Chron. 32:19; Isa. 37:36). This, the concluding psalm of the fifteen Songs of Degrees, deals with a night of service by the priests in the Temple. Note the progression, Psalm 132: Blessing for Zion
|
Conclusion
J. W. Thirtle proposed that the Psalms of Degrees all belonged to the Hezekiah era and that many of the Korah Psalms also belonged within the same time frame.[13] His work has more recently been progressed by G. Booker and H. A. Whittaker in their commentary on the Psalms.
The contextual arguments for dating these psalms to Hezekiah are powerful, whereas the linguistic arguments for dating these psalms long after Hezekiah are unconvincing. On contextual evidence alone we can safely date these psalms to Hezekiah. The linguistic evidence is at best open to interpretation and even if linguistic forms can sometimes be proven to be of later origin that does not exclude updating as no language is static, and despite the sanctity of the copyists’ remit for a literal transcription, the clarification of archaic language or syntax by copyists or updating for liturgical purposes (think here of updating hymn books) cannot be discounted.
[1] J. Day notes; “G. Kwaakel (2002:221-31) in a recent, thorough discussion of the date of Psalm 44 is inclined to place it in the context of Sennacherib’s invasion of Judah in 701 BCE, which is not impossible. As Kwaakel 2002: 224, 227 notes, v. 12, ET 11 ‘You…have scattered us among the nations’ need not refer to 586 BCE, since Sennacherib claims to have deported 200,150 people from Judah”(p. 237). J. Day, “How Many Pre-Exilic Psalms Are There?” in In Search of Pre-Exilic Israel (ed., John Day, London: Continuum, 2004).
[2] The tradition continued into the days of Josephus. In Ant. 4.218, Josephus represents Deut. 17:8-9 as follows: “But if the judges do not understand how they should give judgement about the things that have been laid before them-let them send the case up untouched to the holy city, and when the chief priests and the prophet and the senate have come together, let them give judgement as to what seems fit” (translated by Sarah Pearce, “Josephus as Interpreter of Biblical Law: The representation of the Jewish High Court of Deut. 17:8-12 according to Jewish Antiquities 4.218” JJS 46 (1995): 30-42 (32). Although the precise identity of the high court and its relation to the Mosaic model of justice is a matter of debate, it is significant that Josephus’s model assumes that Jerusalem was still the centre of justice.
[3] G. A. Rendsburg suggests northern origins for some of these Psalms; “There are 36 poems in the Book of Psalms wherein linguistic evidence points very clearly too northern provenance” (G. A. Rendsburg, Linguistic Evidence for the Northern Origin of Selected Psalms (SBL Monograph, no. 43; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990), 104). K. Seybold notes that, “The linguistic evidence, including dialectical elements and a colloquial Hebrew, points to an origin in border areas and in the Diaspora, sociologically in the lower strata.” (K. Seybold, Die Wallfahrtspsalmen (Neukirchener Verlag, 1978), p. 41). L. D. Crow proposes that the Songs consist of two redactional layers: a nucleus that comes from a north-Israelite, agrarian provenance, and a Jerusalemite redactional layer that deliberately gives the “nuclear” songs a new purpose, namely, to persuade northern Israelites of the Persian period to make pilgrimage to the Jerusalem temple. Among other contributions, the work adds to the corpus of psalms identified as northern and engages several methodological issues associated with the identification of a psalm’s provenance (L. D. Crow, The Songs of Ascents (Psalms 120-134): Their Place in Israelite History and Religion (SBL Dissertation Series 148; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996), pp. xiii, 226).
[4] David is found in the same early form (dwID’) in Hos. 3:5 and Amos 6:5 both northern prophets being contemporary with Hezekiah’s reign, so this may indicate northern origins.
[5] Rendsburg summarizes his view on the linguistics as follows; “The form se- is found in the following northern compositions: Song of Deborah (Judg 5:7 [bis]), Gideon cycle (Judg 6:17, 7:12, 8:26), Elisha cycle (2 Kgs 6:11 [in the mouth of an Aramean king]), Song of Songs (always, except in the superscription in Song 1:10, and Qoheleth (67 times). All other instances are in Exilic and post-Exilic compositions ….Consequently, we conclude that se- is northern in origin, and did not penetrate southward until the 6th Century B.C.E.”. Rendsburg, Selected Psalms, 91-92.
[6] Employing Polak’s technique (Frank H. Polak, “The Oral and the Written: Syntax, Stylistics and the Development of Biblical Prose Narrative”, JANES 26 (1998): 59-105) on the WTM Hebrew morphology of Psalm 124 produces a NV (noun-verb) ratio of 0.619 which is clearly within the bounds of early biblical composition however the NF (nominal-finite verb) ratio (0.375) is almost as high as the Persian period book of Ezra thus suggesting a late date of composition. This may indicate that the Psalm is “transitional” or it may indicate that an early Psalm has undergone redaction (updating) during the Persian period; in any case the results are hardly decisive either way; especially as we are dealing with a Psalm that contains only 74 words. The danger is that for such a short selection any number of idiosyncratic usages could skew the statistical analysis.
[7] G. A. Rendsburg and M. G. A. Guzzo, “Phoenician/Punic and Hebrew” in The Encyclopaedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics (4 vols; ed. G. Khan; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2013), 3:71-77 (75). [Available Online.]
[8] I. Young, R. Rezetko, and M. Ehrensvärd, eds., Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts (2 vols; London: Equinox Publishing, 2008) online [cited April 2013] @ http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/yount357913.shtml.
[9] [ED AP]: ‘turn…Zion’ occurs in Isa 52:8 and suggests that Ps 126:1 is about the return of Zion’s captives from the various places that they had been deported by Sennacherib.
[10] “The next relevant item is the fs demonstrative pronoun Az / hzO, which appears in the following northern texts (Rendsburg 2003a:13): 2 Kgs. 6:19 הֹז; Hos. 7:16 וֹז; Ps. 132:12 Az; Qoheleth (6×) hzO. Once more, the attestations span centuries, in this case, from the early-monarchic-period Elisha narrative until the Persian-period book of Qoheleth, with two instances in the interval”. G. A. Rendsburg, “Northern Hebrew through Time: From the Song of Deborah to the Mishnah” in Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew, (eds. C. L. Miller-Naude and Z. Zevit; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2012), 339-359 (345). However, for a qualification of Rendsburg’s view, D. K. Wilson Jr. says, “With the evidence at hand, has an unquestionable answer been given to the demonstrative aAz (and Az)? Surely, it must be late and based on Aramaic yD. No, it is a northernism based on Phoenician וֹ. Or is it a colloquialism, since וֹז is the prevalent form in Mishnaic Hebrew? Are all northernisms colloquial, or all colloquialisms northern? The verdict is still out”. Douglas Keyes Wilson, Jr., An Investigation into the Linguistic Evidence and Classification of Dialect Variation in Biblical Hebrew (Dissertation Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary, 1996), 140. From the authors point of view the most relevant usage of “zo” (wz) is in Exod. 15:13 which we definitely class as early (if not northern).
[11] The phrase occurs in the blessing of Joseph, who did not form a tribe, but whose sons (Ephraim and Manasseh) formed the northern tribes. Those tribes were targeted by Hezekiah’s reformation: “And Hezekiah sent to all Israel and Judah, and wrote letters also to Ephraim and Manasseh, that they should come to the house of the Lord at Jerusalem, to keep the Passover unto the Lord God of Israel”(2 Chron. 30:1). The title “Mighty One of Jacob”, first found in the Pentateuch (Gen 49:24) probably reflects northern tribal usage. Rendsburg observes, “Some poems within the prose text reflect an older stratum of Hebrew and may hark back to a poetic epic tradition. And a few passages, especially those concerning the northern tribes, contain elements of Israelian Hebrew. Most importantly, there are no indications of Late Biblical Hebrew in the Pentateuch”. G. A. Rendsburg, “Pentateuch, Linguistic Layers” in The Encyclopaedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, 3:60-63 (63).
[12] Compare Lev 25:21, “command the blessing” commencing a Jubilee year on the Day of Atonement (the “full year” of Lev 25:29) with 133:3 “command the blessing”.
[13] J. W. Thirtle, Titles of the Psalms (Morgan & Scott: London, 1904) and Old Testament Problems (Morgan & Scott: London, 1907).
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One