An Exegesis of Psalm 13

By Stephen L. Dolson-Andrew

Stephen L. Dolson-Andrew earned an M.A. at George Washington University; M.A. at Claremont Graduate University; M.A. at Fuller Theological Seminary, and presently is in the Ph.D. program in Systematic Theology at Fuller. He has written a previous article for the CTS Journal and spoken at the CTS Teaching Pastors Conference. One may contact Steve at steve_andrew@cp.fuller.edu.

Introduction

Psalm 13 is the shortest of the prayers for salvation [1] in the Psalter, but its terse concision makes it one of the more emotionally effective. Mays agrees with Gunkel’s famous assessment of Psalm 13 as “a parade example” of its type (i.e., “individual lament”), and writes that the psalm “comprehends [the] essential elements [of individual laments] so completely that to know it is to have an introduction to the others.” [2] In the following exposition, we shall see that the psalm generally stays true to its form, but nonetheless expounds its own unique message.

We shall follow standard exegetical procedure in this essay. First we shall present our own translation of the passage. This is followed by a discussion of textual issues that pertain to this psalm. Third we shall comment on form, setting, and authorship. Next, a detailed structural outline of the psalm will be suggested, in keeping with the insights of form criticism. We shall then comment on the text verse by verse and conclude with some theological observations, including the purpose, tone, spiritual meaning, and value of the psalm.

Translation of Psalm 13 [3]

From him who excels musically. A psalm of David.
(1) How long, O LORD, will you continually forget me?
How long will you hide your face from me?
(2) How long must I hold wise counsel in my soul
while having sorrow in my heart daily?
How long will my enemy be exalted over me?
(3) Consider and answer me, O LORD my God!
Illuminate my eyes, lest I sleep the sleep of death,
(4) Lest my enemy say, “I have overcome him!”
Lest my adversaries rejoice when I have fallen.
(5) But I trust in your covenant-love;
My heart will rejoice in your salvation;
(6) I will sing to the LORD,
Because He has dealt bountifully with me.

Text-Critical Issues

Some commentators have been unwilling to accept counsels (עצות) as the correct sense of v. 3a, alleging that this is too awkward to have been original. Craigie complains that “it leaves the unusual combination of counsels (intellectual activity) with soul (here implying the seat of the emotions).” [4] As a result, commentators have suggested possible variants. For instance, עצבת (“hurt, grief, pain”) and עצבות (the plural version of the foregoing) have been proposed as potential authenticities. [5] In the former instance, the holem-waw would have replaced the beth somewhere along the line of transmission. In the latter instance, the beth alone would have been omitted at some point.

Unfortunately for this point of view, there is very little external evidence for either of the alternative readings. Furthermore, the LXX translates the disputed word as βουλὰς, which BAGD defines as “purpose, counsel” or “resolution, decision.” [6] Kraus states that עצות in the sense of “sorrows” is documented in Proverbs 27:9 and Sirach 30:21. [7] But this is misleading. First of all, the second half of Proverbs 27:9 (i.e., the part which ostensibly translates עצות as “sorrows”) in the LXX does not even come close to approximating the MT, suggesting a probable variant here. Furthermore, the word βουλή is not even used here, but rather συμπτωμάτων. In Sirach 30:21, where βουλῇ is actually used, it is by no means clear that it should be translated “sorrow” instead of “counsel” or “purpose.” Furthermore, since Sirach was not written in Hebrew, βουλῇ is not the LXX’s translation of עצות.8

In v. 3b, two Greek manuscripts (codex Alexandrinus and textus Graecus ex recensione Luciani) add καὶ νυκτός to ἡμέρας. This would amount to adding ולילה to יומם, and it would be translated, “having sorrow in my heart by day and night.” Craigie and A. A. Anderson are uncertain about this addition (though Craigie thinks the MT makes perfect sense as it stands), but Kraus thinks the Greek addition “is probably more a matter of instinctive supplementation.” [9] Since the addition is found in a small minority of Greek texts, the MT reading is preferred.

In v. 5, the word יכלתיו is translated in the LXX by ἴσχυσα πρὸς αὐτόν. Since יכל is usually found with lamed, it is quite possible that the LXX preserves the oldest reading, which would then be יכלתי לו. On the other hand, it seems probable that, when ἰσχύω carries the sense of “overcome” or “prevail,” the preposition πρὸς follows the verb naturally. Furthermore, on the basis of internal criticism, it would be surprising if the more difficult reading (i.e., the one without the lamed) would survive the tradition unanimously intact. Overall, this is a fairly difficult textual decision, but we will stay with the consonantal tradition of the MT. [10]

The LXX adds καὶ ψαλῶ τῷ ὀνόματι κυρίου τοῦ ὑψίστου (“and I will sing to the name of the Lord, the Most High”) to the end of v. 6. This addition, however, was probably influenced by Psalm 7:18, which concludes with exactly the same phrase in the LXX. [11]

Form, Setting, Authorship

Form

The conventional view of Psalm 13 is that it is a model representative of the literary genre known as “individual lament.” This traditional nomenclature has been followed by scholars such as F. Delitzsch [12] , A. A. Anderson, [13] H. Gunkel, [14] P. Craigie, [15] M. Dahood, [16] C. Westermann, [17] and B. W. Anderson. [18]

The classification of “lament,” however, has been subjected to heavy criticism in recent form-critical scholarship. Even those scholars who agree that Psalm 13 shares the essential taxonomic structure of the individual lament have issued caveats regarding this terminology. B. W. Anderson notes that “[t]he term may suggest a pessimistic view of life, the whining complaint of self-pity, or ‘bemoaning of a tragedy which cannot be reversed, which is characteristic of a dirge.’” [19] To remedy such a misunderstanding, Mays wants to identify the genre of Psalm 13 as a liturgical “prayer for help of an individual.” [20] Likewise, Westermann carefully notes that a lament “can also be termed a prayer,” [21] and Staton opts for “complaint prayer.” [22]

Kraus, however, wants to abandon the concept of lament entirely and classify Psalm 13 as a “prayer song.” He sees the psalmists primarily as “petitioners,” and he insists they neither lament nor complain. Rather, “[t]hey openly declare their distress before Yahweh and pray for his intervention. This is justly called a prayer. Accordingly, Hebrew tradition calls such a prayer song תפלה.”23

Broyles argues that the term “lament” is too broad. In reality, there are two types of lament, which represent two totally distinct genres: “God-laments” and “non-God-laments.” In the God-lament, “the predications of God do not extol God but establish the incongruity of past and present in the form of a complaint, and thus summon him to his prescribed disposition and conduct.” In the non-God-lament, however, “predications of God. .. affirm the praise of God.” In God-laments, God is ultimately responsible for the suffering depicted, and there is an “almost total absence of confessions of trust.” [24] Broyles classifies Psalm 13 as a God-lament, but he is at great pains to explain the apparent affirmation of trust in v. 6. [25]

Mowinckel defies the flow of scholarly consensus in arguing for Psalm 13 as a “national psalm of lamentation.” [26] He contends that even though it is apparently written from an individual perspective, Psalm 13 is in reality a national (congregational) psalm. It can therefore be doubly classified as a “royal lament,” in which the king’s personal suffering symbolizes national and political disasters. [27] Unfortunately, Mowinckel, though he admits a distinction, does not provide plausible criteria for distinguishing between individual laments and national lamentations. Furthermore, it seems that Mowinckel confuses form with setting; while the psalm may indeed have developed congregational usage in a cultic context, there is no form-critical evidence that this purpose was its original motivation. Finally, his argument lacks power insofar as it fails to explain how a critical distinction between these forms affects the interpretation of content.

In my view, form criticism is a tool of exegesis. In this sense, the ultimate goal of form criticism is to aid in interpretation. Semantic distinctions in the terms used to describe various genres may be helpful on occasion, but these distinctions more often get bogged down in the technicalities of minutiae that simply have no ultimate bearing on meaning. If one could demonstrate, for example, that there was a clear, formal, and consistent delineation (in the literary-historical context of the psalmists) among the lament, complaint, God-lament, and prayer-song forms, then one would be justified in making these distinctions, provided one could demonstrate a significant impact on meaning. Given this evaluative criterion, it seems reasonable to classify Psalm 13 simply as an individual lament.

Setting

While Psalm 13 might possibly have gained general usage in temple ceremonies after its initial composition, [28] the original psalmist was expressing an individual (rather than communal) complaint. [29] There is general agreement among scholars that the psalmist is experiencing deep personal sorrow, insofar as his enemies surround him and have gained the upper hand in a struggle. Broyles suggests that v. 4 indicates the struggle has brought the psalmist near death, likely through a prolonged sickness. [30] Kraus agrees that the “petitioner” is near death due to a prolonged suffering, but he insists there is no way to know the nature of the suffering; it might not be physical. Hence, “[t]he real distress in which the petitioner of the psalm utters his groans is the separation from God, that is, his experiencing of the wrath of God.” [31] Craigie, on the other hand, suggests that the distress “is probably the fear and proximity of death, brought on perhaps by grave illness.” [32] Mays, adducing no evidence whatsoever in support of his position, improbably suggests an existential crisis to be the source of the distress: “[The psalm] is concerned. .. with a structure of neediness that brings to light the full character of the predicament of existence.. .. What attacks our existence exposes weakness and makes us wonder about world and God.” [33]

As for the dating of Psalm 13, there are two schools of opinion. One group of commentators takes the superscription (“A Psalm of David”) at face value; the dating of the text is thus taken for granted.34 The other group of commentators does not take the superscription at face value; among them, there is widespread agreement that the text cannot be dated with any degree of certainty. [35]

Authorship

Most modern critical scholars deny the Davidic authorship of the psalms attributed to David. While it is legitimate to speak of a discrete “Davidic collection,” [36] everyone agrees that the titles were affixed to the psalms after their initial composition. Furthermore, the Hebrew expression לדוד is controversial; it could mean “on behalf of David,” “for (the use of) David,” “belonging to David,” “with reference to David,” “dedicated to David,” or it may even refer to the reigning king as the Davidic descendant. [37]

Mowinckel insists that לדוד must be translated “for (the use of) David.” And even if it were properly translated “by David,” there remain two major problems with Davidic authorship of the psalms. First, some of the psalms ascribed to David seem to take the existence of the temple for granted, when in fact David died before the temple was built. [38] Second, there are developments in the Hebrew language throughout the Davidic corpus, suggesting some were written much later than others. [39]

On the other hand, there are scholars who have argued convincingly for Davidic authorship. Though he probably would deny Davidic authorship, Kraus nevertheless provides a thoroughly persuasive argument that לדוד should be understood as indicating Davidic authorship. Following Gesenius and Eissfeldt, Kraus correctly insists that the ל should be taken as a ל auctoris (denoting the author). [40]

Furthermore, as even A. A. Anderson and Craigie admit, there is an ancient and strong tradition that identifies David as a composer, musician, and singer. [41] In addition to the thirteen psalm superscriptions that connect specific events in David’s life to the composition of the psalm in question, this Davidic tradition is further attested in passages such as 1 Samuel 16:17–23; 18:10; 2 Samuel 1:17–27; 3:33–34; 6:5; 22; 23:1–7; 1 Chronicles 13:8; 15:3–28; 16:4–43; 23:1–5; 25; Ezra 3:10; Nehemiah 12:24; and Amos 6:5. [42] It is therefore reasonable to posit Davidic authorship of Psalm 13. [43]

Structure and Outline

In considering the structure of Psalm 13, the first thing we must determine is whether or not it has a strophic structure. In order to confirm its strophic structure, we must validate a metrical arrangement of verse. Unfortunately, we cannot detect a metrical arrangement in this psalm. A. A. Anderson notes that the meter is irregular. [44] Kraus also insists there is no way of proving strophic organization, since there is an “unsettled meter.” He sees a 4+4 pattern in vv. 1 and 3, a 4+3 pattern in vv. 2 and 4, and a 3+3 pattern in v. 5. He also notes that “[h]alf-verses without a corresponding parallelism of members are present as simple fours in vv. 2 and 5.” [45] Unless one would presume to emend the text in order to force a strophic organization, it seems we cannot detect the structure of the psalm in this manner.

Delitzsch argues for a format of three strophes (vv. 2–3, 4–5, 6), but he gives no structural evidence for it. Instead, he argues on the basis of content. The strophes are “three groups of decreasing magnitude,” in which the complaint descends from desperate intensity, to calm urgency, to peaceful confidence. [46] It seems that Delitzsch has correctly understood the movement and progress of the psalm, but “strophe” is a technical term, so it is perhaps better to speak of three “movements” within Psalm 13. [47]

The first movement comprises the lament proper. Westermann points out that the fundamental structure of a formal lament is threefold: you (God), I (psalmist), they (enemies). [48] This is exactly what we see in vv. 2–3, which are composed of four עד־אנה clauses. The second movement constitutes the petition. There are three imperative verbs used here to request God’s intervention: הביטה, ענני, and האירה (“consider,” “answer,” and “illuminate”). There are three accompanying contingencies that may occur if God does not intervene: (1) the psalmist will “sleep the sleep of death,” (2) his enemy will say, “I have overcome him,” and (3) his adversaries will rejoice because he has fallen. The third movement expresses the confident faith of the psalmist. [49] He affirms his trust in the Lord, anticipates thanksgiving and praise for deliverance, and gives the basis for his praise.

The structural outline of Psalm 13 is as follows:

TITLE

I. Lament Proper (vv. 2–3)

A. You (God) (v. 2) 

B. I (Psalmist) (v. 3a) 

C. They (Enemies) (v. 3b)

II. Petition (vv. 4–5)

A. Request: Consider (v. 4a) 

B. Request: Answer (v. 4a) 

C. Request: Illuminate (v. 4b) 

D. Consequence of Inaction: Death (v. 4b) 

E. Consequence of Inaction: Enemy will Overcome (v. 5a) 

F. Consequence of Inaction: Enemies will Rejoice (v. 5b)

III. Expression of Faith (v. 6)

A. Affirmation of Trust (v. 6a) 

B. Anticipatory Thanksgiving (v. 6b) 

C. Anticipatory Praise (v. 6c) 

D. Basis for Praise (v. 6d)

Commentary

(V. 1) We have already discussed the meaning of מזמור לדוד above; we concluded that Kraus is correct—the ל is a ל auctoris, denoting authorship. The text thus indicates that David is the author. However, the meaning of למנצח is more complicated. This heading occurs in 55 psalm headings and in Habakkuk 3:19. Its meaning is still unexplained. It is likely that נצח means musical director or choirmaster, since we are dealing with a piel participle. [50] But as for the function of ל, there have been numerous suggestions. Unfortunately, the LXX’s enigmatic reading of למנצח, εἰς τὸ τέλος, does not exactly shed light on the question. After a thorough survey of suggested renderings, Kraus again opts for the sense of a ל auctoris and suggests that the phrase may best be rendered as “from him who excels (as poet and singer).” [51] This is perhaps the best option suggested thus far in the literature; it does justice simultaneously to semantics, grammar, and context.

(V. 2) עד־אנה begins a string of four consecutive clauses. The fourfold repetition of the expression indicates the psalmist’s despair at the prolonged length of the distress; it has been going on for quite some time. The psalmist addresses the Lord [52] directly in the vocative יהוה. It seems to him that the Lord is passively sitting by while he suffers—hence the figurative usage of the Lord’s “forgetfulness” (in verb form, תשׁכחני). A. A. Anderson argues that this is “a deliberate aloofness on the part of God for some unspecified reason,” implying that the psalmist is in disfavor with God. [53] However, the absence of favor is not necessarily disfavor; for example, in Psalms 22, 42, 44, 74, 77, and 88, there are clear indications of God’s disfavor, which He expresses either through passivity in the face of the psalmist’s plight or through active hostile punishment. [54] But in Psalm 13 there is no confession of wrongdoing, which is what we would expect if God’s passivity was punishment because of disfavor: “[t]he urgency of the psalmist’s plea springs from a sense of profound anxiety, not penitence.” [55]

The word נצח functions as an adverb modifying תשׁכחני. This maintains the sentential integrity of the repeated עד־אנה clauses, rather than artificially splitting the first one into two parts: a fragment and an awkward clause (i.e., “How long, O LORD? Will you forget me forever?”). This would be awkward because נצח would then logically contradict the עד־אנה.56 Seeing עד־אנה יהוה תשׁכחני נצח as one complete clause respects the context, the parallelism, and the grammatical coherence of the passage. Furthermore, it allows us properly to translate נצח as “continually” or “perpetually.” A. A. Anderson, among others, wants to translate נצח as “utterly.” [57] This has little lexical support, however. The emphasis is on the length of the suffering, not on the enormity of God’s passivity. Thus, the clause is rightly translated, “How long, O LORD, will you continually forget me?”

The second sentence in v. 2 is synthetically parallel to the first; they are saying essentially the same thing. פניך (lit., “your faces”) is figurative for “your presence.” [58]

(V. 3) The third עד־אנה clause marks a transition in focus from God to the psalmist. He asks how long he must (אשׁית is an imperfect of necessity) “hold counsels in my soul.” A clue as to the meaning of this clause can be obtained from the phrase יגון בלבבי יומם, which is the second direct object that attaches to the verb אשׁית (עצות בנפשׁי is the first direct object). It seems best to take the second direct object as ironically adversative to the first. The plural form of עצה occurs only three times in the OT (here and in Deuteronomy 32:28 and Isaiah 25:1); in each instance it is not a neutral term but rather a term indicating positive morality—it carries the idea of “wise counsel” or “wisdom.” If this is correct, then the psalmist draws attention to the irony and effectively asks God, “Why do I experience sorrow in my heart when I am righteous in my soul?”

The precise usage of יומם here is debated. Some commentators insist that the term ought to be translated “daily” rather than “by day.” The difference is one of nuance: “daily” emphasizes the prolonged duration of the suffering, while “by day” emphasizes the all-consuming totality of the suffering. In other words, is there sorrow in the psalmist’s heart “every day” or “all day long”? Both Alexander and Hengstenberg appeal to Ezekiel 30:16 to argue for “daily.” [59] In agreement with this view, BDB cites Psalm 13:3 as an example of the poetic (i.e., non-literal) usage of יומם, which should be understood as “continually.” [60] On the other hand, Delitzsch prefers “by day” and disagrees with “daily,” arguing that Ezekiel 30:16 is inconclusive. He thinks that לילה is implied in v. 3a, which leads to the following interpretation:

By night [the psalmist] proposes plan after plan, each one as worthless as the other; and by day, or all the day through, when he sees his distress with open eyes, sorrow (יגון) is in his heart, as it were, as the feeling the night leaves behind it and as the direct reflex of his helpless and hopeless condition. [61]

This shows creative thinking on the part of Delitzsch, but he is unable to substantiate it contextually, and the premises (which are in turn based on his questionable exegesis of the immediately preceding verses) supporting it are unsound. Neither does he state why Ezekiel 30:16 should be unpersuasive as evidence for the alternative view.

The final עד־אנה clause marks a transition in focus from the psalmist to his enemy. Here we have the cause for the psalmist’s sorrow and for his feeling that the Lord has forgotten him: his enemy is being exalted (ירום) over him. Likely, the psalmist is facing a personal enemy (Saul?) who has doggedly and successfully antagonized him up to the point of death (see commentary on v. 4), and the enemy is about to be victorious.

(V. 4) The petition section begins with three imperative clauses that function as entreaties to the Lord and concludes with three result clauses that indicate the dire consequences if He fails to respond to the entreaties.

The first request is that the Lord should “consider” (הביטה) or “have regard” for the psalmist and, by implied extension, for his plight. [62] The pronominal direct-object suffix (“me”) of the second imperative verb (“answer”—ענני) also serves as the direct object of הביטה; the energic ending of הביטה “may be intended as the metrical surrogate for the suffix.” [63] “LORD” is vocative, as is “my God” (אלהי), which is in apposition to יהוה. The Lord is not an aloof, omnipotent-yet-passive Deity for the psalmist; the Lord is “MY God.” This is a subtle appeal to the Lord’s duty as the psalmist’s “patron deity” in the cultic context of the Ancient Near East.

The psalmist also asks the Lord to illuminate (or “enlighten”)—האירה—his eyes. Throughout the OT, [64] God is said to illuminate people’s eyes:

The underlying meaning of the phrase seems to be to give life, since a prayer for God’s light to be given to the eyes is really a plea to escape death (Psalm 13:3[4]). In this sense it recalls the similar expression “the light of life.” Receiving light in this way is dependent on God’s face being turned towards a person. The problem in Psalm 13:3[4] is that God’s face is hidden (v.1[2]), i.e., the light of God’s face is not shining on the one who prays. [65]

This is the majority view, and it is nicely summed up by Delitzsch: “To lighten the eyes that are dimmed with sorrow and ready to break, is equivalent to, to impart new life (Ezra ix. 8), which is reflected in the fresh clear brightness of the eye...” [66] H. Schmidt’s view, that the psalmist’s chief concern is an eye disease that has afflicted him, surely reads too much into the expression האירה עיני.67

The psalmist now lists three things that are likely to occur if the Lord fails to intervene. Two of the three clauses explicitly begin with “lest” (פן), and the third clause implicitly begins with “lest.” In the first clause, the psalmist is about to “sleep the sleep of death.” Literally, the text reads “lest I sleep the death.” But this is a prime example of a schema etymologicum, in which המות is “used pregnantly for שׁנת המות (cf. Jer 5139).” [68] Of course, passages such as Job 3:13; 14:12; and Psalm 76:5[6] are just some of the many OT passages in which sleep functions as a metaphor for death.

(V. 5) Some commentators take the singular “enemy” (איבי) as a collective noun referring to a group of enemies, primarily because of the plural “adversaries” (צרי) in the following parallelism. Staton, on the other hand, thinks the original author might have had an actual individual in mind. [69]

Still others see the singular enemy as death itself. Craigie believes the distinction in number is intentional: “The singular enemy is no doubt the personification of death; the plural enemies are the psalmist’s foes in general.” [70] Dahood, while agreeing with Craigie that the singular enemy is death itself, nevertheless disagrees with him on the distinction in number: “Plurale majestatis [צרי] is another name for the psalmist’s archrival, Mot”—that is, Death—“the adversary par excellence.” [71] Dahood’s argument—that the plural designates a true singular—is thus precisely the opposite of Anderson’s and Alexander’s view—that the singular designates a true plural! Perhaps the best interpretation combines Staton’s and Craigie’s views: the singular enemy is one individual [72] who is in ultimate control of a general group of adversaries aligned against the psalmist.

The phrase “overcome him” (יכלתיו) is a more precise translation than “prevailed against him,” because there is a pronominal direct object accusative rather than a separate preposition with pronominal suffix, which would imply the dative idea. [73] One may expect the far more common usage of לו with יכל, since Psalm 13:5 appears to be the one occurrence in the OT of this form with this verb, [74] but Dahood has presented evidence from the UT that suggests the MT reading is quite legitimate. [75]

The second clause in this line (כי אמוט) should be understood to contain an implied פן prefix, which marks the clause as the third negative result clause in the petition. As GKC puts it, citing Psalm 13:5 as just one example, “[t]he negative sometimes extends its influence from the first to a second negative sentence parallel with it (which may or may not have [ו]).. . .”76

Delitzsch is probably right that כי אמוט should be taken as a temporal clause rather than as a causal clause. This is because כי is followed by the niphal imperfect אמוט.77 The term אמוט (“fallen” or “shaken”) may be a euphemism for death, but usually “it is a picture of misfortune in general.” [78]

(V. 6) To mark emphatically the transition from petition to expression of faith, the psalmist begins with ואני! Westermann identifies this as adversative waw, and he cites its frequent use in the individual lament psalms to mark the transition to the confession of trust. [79] Even though the ו is grammatically linked to v. 5, there is virtually no doubt that, from a form-critical perspective, the ואני signifies a clear contrast and progression in mood.

The psalmist is not waiting for God to prove Himself: בטחתי is in the perfect tense; the psalmist is already trusting (relying on) God’s “covenant love” (בחסדך). This חסד is a very significant term in the OT. It denotes a love and devotion shown by God to his covenant people, that is, to the Patriarchs and their descendants, the children of Israel. [80] Whereas חסד usually “characterizes an attitude of God”—that is, an attitude as opposed to an action—a different motif is common in the Psalms, and particularly (if not exclusively) in the laments: God shows His loyalty to His covenantal people by means of His חסד, which “saves people from disaster or oppressors.” [81] Furthermore, if my argument above for Davidic authorship is correct, then חסד would have a special resonance for David, to whom the Lord promises that His חסד will never depart (2 Samuel 7:15).

In the second clause, the psalmist’s heart, which currently is full of sorrow (v. 3), will in the future rejoice (יגל) in the Lord’s salvation/deliverance. Whereas his adversaries may rejoice (יגילו) in v. 5, he expresses confidence that he will ultimately be the one rejoicing. יגל probably should be taken as a jussive with future implications (rather than a jussive with imperative or voluntative connotations), since the salvation in question has yet to occur. In the following sentence, גמל is perfect tense in the dependent clause, [82] and A. A. Anderson correctly identifies it as a perfect of certainty; that is, the psalmist uses the perfect tense to express his sure conviction that the Lord will intervene in his behalf. [83] It is thus reasonable to designate the verb in the independent clause (אשׁירה) as a voluntative cohortative. [84] Thus, there seems to be an interesting verbal progression from the perfect (“I have trusted and am trusting”) to the jussive future (“My heart shall rejoice”) to a voluntative cohortative (“Let me sing”) to a perfect of certainty (“He has dealt bountifully” in the sense that “it is as good as done”). [85]

The expression עלי has caused some controversy, thanks chiefly to the efforts of Dahood, who has argued that it should be taken as a “divine appellative.” [86] He insists that עלי is properly vocalized as cli (“Most High”), instead of alay (“with me”). He suggests that עלי in Psalm 7:9 should likewise be rendered “Most High,” and he further points out that Psalm 13:6 in the LXX reads καὶ ψαλῶ τῷ ὀνόματι κυρίου τοῦ ὑψίστου (“and I will sing to the name of the Lord, the Most High”), which is, as discussed earlier, considered by most scholars to be influenced by Psalm 7:18. This does indeed seem to be an amazing coincidence, but Dahood fails to mention the following facts: (1) the LXX translates עלי in Psalm 7:9 as ἐπ᾿ ἐμοί (“on me”), not as ὑψίστε (“Most High”); (2) in the MT of Psalm 7:18, “Most High” is עליון, not עלי; (3) in Psalm 13:6 (LXX 12:6), the LXX does not substitute τοῦ ὑψίστου (“Most High”) for τῷ εὐεργετήσαντί με (“to the one who does good to me”); v. 6d of the MT has already been translated in the LXX—the LXX simply appends 7:18b to the end of the psalm. If Dahood is correct, the sentence would read as follows: “Let me sing to the LORD, because the Most High has dealt bountifully.” But A. A. Anderson has pointed out that the preposition על is often found after the verb גמל.87

Purpose and Value

The immediate and personal purpose of the composer of Psalm 13 is to seek the Lord’s deliverance from intense distress and the helplessness he faces in its midst. Yet in spite of his apparent helplessness, he knows he can rely on the Lord for deliverance. The basis of his reliance is God’s covenantal love (חסד). The psalmist’s ultimate purpose is representative; he wants to help others. He thereby accomplishes the following goals: (1) to express his own suffering and thereby encourage others who suffer, because a hurting individual often needs to know that he is not alone in his suffering—others can identify with him; (2) to set forth a model of moral and spiritual strength in the face of severe adversity; (3) to teach others how to pray in times of crisis; [88] (4) to demonstrate that the Lord is our sole refuge; He is strong to save, and His covenant-love is forever reliable. “Thereby the center of attention is not the change of fortune but the saving God alone, who rescues from the realm of death, enlightens the eyes (v. 3[4]), and does good things (v. 5b[6]).” [89]

As noted above, the progression in tone is striking, from the anguish of the first movement to the calm serenity of the third and final movement. Delitzsch aptly captures the poetic flow:

A long deep sigh is followed, as from a relieved breast, by an already much more gentle and half calm prayer; and this again by the believing joy which anticipates the certainty of being answered. This song as it were casts up constantly lessening waves, until it becomes still as the sea when smooth as a mirror, and the only motion discernible at last is that of the joyous ripple of calm repose. [90]

“How long?” is repeated four times in the lament section, and it is quite effective at conveying the excruciating prolongation of the psalmist’s suffering. And yet, by the final line, he is able to use the perfect tense of certainty that the Lord will “deal bountifully” with him. “In the storm-tossed soul of the suppliant all has now become calm. Though it rage without as much now as ever—peace reigns in the depth of his heart.” [91]

When Christ suffered on the cross, he quoted from Psalm 22: My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me? (Matthew 27:46, NKJV) [92] There are many parallels between Psalms 13 and 22. The latter psalm is also an individual lament, and it too follows the form of a lament: in it we hear the desperate sense of abandonment the psalmist feels in the face of God’s seeming indifference to his suffering, but we also observe several affirmations of trust, and the conclusion is punctuated with a powerful vow of praise. Neither can we help but draw a parallel from Psalm 13 to the most famous psalm of all, Psalm 23. While the latter is not in the form of an individual lament, it nonetheless famously proclaims that the Lord will “prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies,” because the Lord’s rod and staff comfort the psalmist “though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death.” Psalm 142 is another individual lament that closely patterns Psalm 13; it even concludes similarly: כי תגמל עלי (“For You shall deal bountifully with me”).

Psalm 13 remains utterly relevant to our contemporary sitz im Leben. One lesson it continues to teach us is that our soul/spirit cannot be readily separated from our physical bodies. According to Craigie, “in the Hebrew conception, there could be no life apart from the body, [therefore] the inner person was profoundly affected by the state of the physical body.” [93] The fact that we are “citizens of heaven” does not mean we escape the sufferings, the obligations, or the joys of our earthly citizenship. Furthermore, this psalm helps us understand that God’s honor has a personal stake in the resolution of our conflicts and distress. The psalmist does not appeal to God’s grace; instead, he appeals to God’s intrinsic character as promised by and demonstrated through His חסד. If the Lord fails to deliver him, then (to borrow from Psalm 6) [i]n the grave who will give You thanks? The Lord must deliver the psalmist in order to vindicate His trustworthiness in the sight of His (the Lord’s) enemies and thereby glorify Himself. Therefore we should not be shy in claiming the promises of God in our prayers and petitions to Him.

The psalm also teaches us the proper attitude to maintain in times of suffering: confident faith in the Lord’s lovingkindness. Many passages in the New Testament testify to the value of enduring and persevering through adverse circumstances; some notable passages include John 16:33; Philippians 1:27–30; 1 Peter 1:6–9, 4:12–19; and James 1:2–4. And while we experience these trials, it is comforting to know that our cries do not go unheard: the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered (Romans 8:26), and For [God] Himself has said, “I will never leave you nor forsake you.” So we may boldly say: “The LORD is my helper; I will not fear. What can man do to me? (Hebrews 13:5b–6, with allusions to Deuteronomy 31:6, 8; Joshua 1:5; and Psalm 118:6). Makrakis nicely sums up the theology of Psalm 13 as follows:

[We] should have the virtue of fortitude in the contest (which may be prolonged and not quickly ended in accordance with [our] desire), which is inseparable from the virtues of faith and trust in God, and should not be pusillanimous and liable to despond and sleep to death. These virtues, however, can be strengthened as a result of enlightenment of the cognitive faculty, when it knows the law of divine justice, in accordance with which God, for reasons of His own, does not immediately grant what is requested, and the one making the request has to persist and beseech and not lose hope, in view of the well known mercy and righteousness of God. [94]

Conclusion

In the Introduction, we noted that Psalm 13 is the shortest of the prayers for salvation in the Psalter. Indeed, it is quite concise. Yet this terseness, as we have demonstrated, cannot be taken for shallowness. This psalm is profound and it packs a lot of punch in its six short verses.

In the course of exegesis, we first presented a translation of the passage; while this section came first in the presentation, it truly is the fruit of exegesis and was thus the last section completed. The next section included a discussion of text-critical issues to which Psalm 13 has given rise. We next evaluated the psalm’s form, setting, and authorship. After an analysis of the flow and structure, we came to the psalm itself, on which we commented verse by verse. We concluded with some theological observations, including the purpose, tone, spiritual meaning, and value of the psalm.

Ultimately, we have seen that the message of Psalm 13 is timeless, and its value for suffering believers is priceless.

Appendix [95]

“Psalm 13”

How long wilt thou, O God of grace,
Forget thy wonted love?
How long conceal thy shining face,
Nor bid the cloud remove?

How long shall my dejected soul,
Thus pondering o’er her woes,
In vain endeavour to controul
The power of inward foes?

Lord, hear my prayer, and heal my woes,
Arise with cheering light;
Or soon these wretched eyes will close
In everlasting night.

The powers of darkness will rejoice
To see my life decay,
And triumph with insulting voice
Around their trembling prey.

But, Lord, thy mercy hitherto
Has been my only trust;
Let mercy now my joys renew,
And raise me from the dust.

Then shall my heart and tongue proclaim
The bounties of my God,
My songs with grateful rapture flame,
And spread thy praise abroad.

Notes

1. These are also known as “laments” and “complaints.” The scholarly fashion now is to think of Psalm 13 as a “prayer,” for reasons that will be explained below.
2. James L. Mays, “Psalm 13” [Expository Article], Int 34 (July 1980): 279. Mays admits, however, that the term individual lament is not without difficulties.
3. Since most English translations do not consider the heading to be part of the psalm proper, I have put the verse numbers that correspond to English translations in parentheses. However, verse references will correspond to the MT in the remainder of this essay, unless the context indicates otherwise.
4. Peter C. Craigie, Psalms 1–50, WBC, ed. David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker, vol. 19 (Waco, TX: Word, 1983), 140.
5. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstifftung, 1977), apparatus, 1095.
6. Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick W. Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (University of Chicago: Chicago, 1979), 145.
7. Hans-Joachim Kraus, Psalms 1–59: A Continental Commentary, trans. Hilton C. Oswald (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 212. See also A. A. Anderson, The Book of Psalms: Volume 1: Introduction and Psalms 1–72, NCB, ed. Ronald E. Clements and Matthew Black (London: Oliphants, 1972), 128–29; Craigie, Psalms 1–50, 140.
8. For an alternative suggestion based on comparative linguistics, see Craigie’s critique of Dahood’s proposal in Mitchell Dahood, Psalms I: 1–50, AB, ed. William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966), 140. I hold with Craigie that Dahood’s proposal is dubious at best.
9. Kraus, Psalms 1–59, 212; Anderson, Book of Psalms, 129; Craigie, Psalms 1–50, 140; here Craigie discusses another of Dahood’s dubious attempts to draw conclusions from comparative linguistics—this time Dahood wants to read יומם as a Qal participle from ימם.
10. Fortunately, this reading does not seem to be a pivotal point upon which the psalm’s message hinges.
11. See A. A. Anderson, Book of Psalms, 130; and Dahood, Psalms, 79.
12. Franz Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Psalms, vol. 1, trans. Francis Bolton, K&D (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, n.d.), 199. Delitzsch intriguingly suggests (ibid.) that the collector of the Psalms placed 12 and 13 together for two reasons: (1) they are both laments (though 12 is a “general lament,” rather than an individual lament) and (2) the ירום of 13:3 “harmonizes” with the כרם of 12:9.
13. A. A. Anderson, Book of Psalms, 128.
14. Kraus, Psalms 1–59, 213.
15. Craigie, Psalms 1–50, 141.
16. Dahood, Psalms, 76.
17. Claus Westermann, Praise and Lament in the Psalms, trans. Keith R. Crim and Richard N. Soulen (Atlanta: John Knox, 1981), 182.
18. Bernhard W. Anderson, with Steven Bishop, Out of the Depths: The Psalms Speak for Us Today, 3d ed. (Louisville: John Knox, 2000), 59.
19. Ibid., 60. Anderson wants to distinguish between a “lamentation” and a “lament.” Most of the lament psalms would thus qualify as laments proper, in which expressed hope is the key difference from a lamentation.
20. James L. Mays, Psalms, IBC, ed. James Luther Mays (Louisville: John Knox, 1994), 21. Also see Mays, “Psalm 13, ” 281.
21. Westermann, Praise and Lament, 170–71. He points out that, in most laments, the petition follows the complaint; thus, taken together, the component parts constitute a prayer/lament. At another point, he notes that it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between communal and individual laments. Generally, however, “[t]he complaint against God does not have the dominant role in the [individual lament] as it does in the lament of the people” (183, italics in the original).
22. Cecil P. Staton Jr., “‘How Long, O Yahweh?’ The Complaint Prayer of Psalm 13, ” Faith and Mission 7 (Spring 1990): 61. L. Allen, “Psalms Exegesis,” explains that American scholars tend to prefer the term “complaint” to “lament.” This is because “lament” is already a technical term for “funeral dirge” (e.g., 2 Samuel 1:17–27). Furthermore, they argue that “complaint” is simply a more precise description of the form than “lament.”
23. Kraus, Psalms 1–59, 213.
24. 24 Craig C. Broyles, The Conflict of Faith and Experience in the Psalms: A Form-Critical and Theological Study, JSOTSup, ed. David J. A. Clines and Philip R. Davies, no. 52 (Sheffield, England: JSOT, 1989), 51.
25. Ibid., 185-87. An analysis of Broyles’s justification of Psalm 13 as a God-lament is beyond the scope of this paper, but it seems to me that he must resort to a rather forced defense of v. 6 as displaying “an inner continuity” (186) with the rest of the psalm.
26. Sigmund Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israel’s Worship, trans. D. R. Ap-Thomas, The Biblical Seminar, no. 14, two volumes published in one edition (Sheffield, England: JSOT, 1992), I: 219.
27. Ibid., 225. See vol. I, chap. VII for further elaboration on “National Psalms of Lamentation in the I-Form.”
28. Craigie, Psalms 1–50, 141.
29. See the previous section on “Form.” Also cf. E. W. Hengstenberg, Commentary on the Psalms, vol. 1, 4th ed., Clark’s Foreign Theological Library (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1876), 197; Staton, “How Long,” 60; and Kraus, Psalms 1–59, 214.
30. Broyles, The Conflict of Faith and Experience, 184. However, Staton, “How Long,” 60, suggests “it is equally possible to read this language as poetic and thus symbolic of the petitioner’s plight.”
31. Kraus, Psalms 1–59, 213. Here Kraus echoes A. A. Anderson’s view—Anderson, Book of Psalms, 128—and is himself echoed by Staton, “How Long,” 60–61. Kraus speculates that the “enemy” of vv. 3 and 5 may be slandering the psalmist or reinforcing the psalmist’s sense of guilt.
32. Craigie, Psalms 1–50, 141. He continues this argument on p. 142. In Craigie’s implausible view, the “enemy” is synonymous with the “distress”—death itself! This is, of course, tautological: the prospect of death causes the fear of the prospect of death.
33. Mays, Psalms, 78. This was the same suggestion he had earlier put forward in Mays, “Psalm 13, ” 1, in which essay he also suggests (p. 3) that the psalm was written as liturgy—an opinion not shared by the majority of scholars.
34. See the following section, “Authorship,” for further discussion.
35. However, Craigie, Psalms 1–50, 141, tentatively suggests that it originated early in the period of the Hebrew monarchy; Staton, “How Long,” 60, thinks it likely that the psalm is pre-exilic in origin.
36. E.g., Staton, “How Long,” 60.
37. See the discussion in A. A. Anderson, Book of Psalms, 44–45, and Craigie, Psalms 1–50, 33–35.
38. This argument is discussed in Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israel’s Worship, 77, who points specifically to Psalms 24 and 64 (65). It was also discussed by L. Allen, “Psalms Exegesis.”
39. This argument was discussed by L. Allen, “Psalm Exegesis.”
40. Kraus, Psalms 1–59, 22–23; GKC §129c, 419–20. Of course, Kraus never says that the superscription is actually correct; he only argues for what the superscription intends to say.
41. A. A. Anderson, Book of Psalms, 44; Craigie, Psalms 1–50, 35. Anderson and Craigie both admit that at least some of the psalms attributed to David may be authentic.
42. As for the thirteen superscriptions containing historical notes, Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israel’s Worship, II:100, somewhat tendentiously ascribes this to “the typical Jewish Midrash or learned legend about David as the author of the psalms.” Several commentators have gone further than Davidic authorship and speculated on the specific events in David’s life that might have prompted the composition of Psalm 13. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Psalms, 199, notes, with qualified approval, that Hitzig assigns it to the time when Saul sent spies to hunt David from place to place, until David ultimately despaired of his survival. Also holding to this assessment are Apostolos Makrakis, Commentary on the Psalms of David, trans. D. Cummings (Chicago: Orthodox Christian Educational Society, 1950), 88, and Hengstenberg, Commentary on the Psalms, 196–97.
43. I personally hold to Davidic authorship and do not believe critical scholarship has diminished its reasonableness. In the interests of full disclosure, however, I also hold to Davidic authorship for theological reasons, which are of course beyond the scope of this paper.
44. A. A. Anderson, Book of Psalms, 128.
45. Kraus, Psalms 1–59, 213.
46. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Psalms, 199.
47. Kraus, Psalms 1–59, 213, also segments the psalm into three parts. Using the versification of the English translations, he sees vv. 1–2 as “desperate questions,” vv. 3–4 as “lamenting petitions,” and v. 5 as “confidence and thanksgiving.” Mays, “Psalm 13, ” 279, essentially agrees: vv. 1–2 are a “description of trouble,” vv. 3–4 are a “petition for help,” and vv. 5–6 represent “praise of the Lord.” In the progress of the psalm, he discerns a theological system in which “[t]he parts contain a sequence of components each of which plays a role in the prayer as an act of faith.”
48. Westermann, Praise and Lament, 169.
49. In my view, this third element is integral to any proper lament. This “change in mood” is only troublesome to those who want to make an absolute fetish out of form criticism (e.g., Broyles, The Conflict of Faith and Experience, 185–87; and David Leiter, “The Rhetoric of Praise in the Lament Psalm,” Brethren Life and Thought 40 [Winter 1995]: 44-48).
50. BDB, 664. The other alternative, that it means “to make music,” has its own difficulties (see Kraus, Psalms 1–59, 29).
51. Kraus, Psalms 1–59, 30.
52. In this exposition I am not distinguishing in case between “LORD” and “Lord.” When referring to the Hebrew text, my use of “Lord” always refers to יהוה.
53. A. A. Anderson, Book of Psalms, 128.
54. See Broyles, The Conflict of Faith and Experience, 184.
55. Craigie, Psalms 1–50, 142. In fact, the psalmist actually suggests that he is righteous, if my interpretation of v. 3 is correct (see below).
56. Following Nötscher and Delitzsch, Kraus admits this is a logical contradiction, but he asserts it is not a psychological one (Kraus, Psalms 1–59, 215). However, it is far better to avoid this complication entirely by positing one complete clause instead of two incomplete and illogical clauses.
57. A. A. Anderson, Book of Psalms, 128.
58. BDB, 816.
59. J. A. Alexander, The Psalms Translated and Explained, vol. 1 (New York: Charles Scribner, 1852), 98; and Hengstenberg, Commentary on the Psalms, 199–200. At least in the Ezekiel passage, “daily” is obviously the correct translation.
60. Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1907), 401. BDB further opines that the translation “by day” here “yields a lame sense.”
61. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Psalms, 200.
62. Instead of the Lord hiding His face from him (v. 2), the psalmist asks the Lord literally to “look at me.”
63. Dahood, Psalms, 77. Also see A. A. Anderson, Book of Psalms, 129.
64. Cf. Deut. 34:7; 1 Sam. 14:27, 29; Job 17:7; Pss. 6:7[8]; 19:8[9]; 38:10[11]; Prov. 29:13; Lam. 5:17.
65. NIDOTTE, 325. TDOT, 158, concurs in that “[w]hen the light of the eyes fails, a person is approaching death.. . .”
66. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Psalms, 200–201. See also Kraus, Psalms 1–59, 216; Alexander, The Psalms Translated and Explained, 99; Hengstenberg, Commentary on the Psalms, 200–201; Craigie, Psalms 1–50, 142. A. A. Anderson, Book of Psalms, 129, notes that “a man’s eyes can be regarded as a ‘barometer’ of vitality.”
67. Kraus, Psalms 1–59, 213.
68. Wilhelm Gesenius, Emil Kautzsch, A.E. Cowley, ed., Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar (Oxford: Clarendon, 1910), § 117p-r (p. 367).
69. Staton, “How Long,” 62. Unfortunately, Staton moves seamlessly from exegesis to application when he notes immediately that “it is probably best not to restrict ‘enemy’ to this meaning alone. The vagueness of the reference allows all who enter here to place themselves and their situations into this prayer.” As a result of this inappropriate mixture, Staton never explains the discrepancy between the singular enemy and the plural adversaries.
70. See Craigie, Psalms 1–50, 142, as well as the brief discussion in the body of this article.
71. Dahood, Psalms, 78, 105.
72. If my arguments in this article’s body are correct, this would probably be Saul.
73. Hengstenberg, Commentary on the Psalms, 201; Bruce K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 166; Joüon, 440–41, calls this an example of an “accusative of the affected object.”
74. In fact, this seems to be the main reason Kraus, Psalms 1–59, 213, prefers יכלתי לו from the standpoint of textual criticism.
75. Dahood, Psalms, 78; this is perhaps the one example in Dahood’s commentary on Psalm 13 in which he provides persausive evidence from the perspective of comparative linguistics. Also see footnote 11 on p. 166 of Waltke/O’Connor, Biblical Hebrew Syntax, as well as the brief discussion in the body of this article.
76. GKC, § 152z (p. 483).
77. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Psalms, 201. Interestingly, the LXX and Vulg. also understand this as a temporal clause.
78. A. A. Anderson, Book of Psalms, 130. Craigie, Psalms 1–50, 142, and Nötscher hold to the euphemism view, but Craigie mistakenly cites Anderson as an ally. See the discussion in A. A. Anderson, Book of Psalms, 129–130.
79. Westermann, Praise and Lament, 70–75. On the emphatic nature of the adversative waw, see also Broyles, The Conflict of Faith and Experience, 186, and Kraus, Psalms 1–59, 216.
80. The term is first used in Gen 24:12 and seems to have little, if any, application in the OT to anyone outside the covenant. Also see A. A. Anderson, Book of Psalms, 215.
81. TLOT, 461, and NIDOTTE, 213. Cf. BDB, 339.
82. In its basic sense, גמל is neutral, meaning “deal” or “treat.” But Alexander, The Psalms Translated and Explained, 100–101, rightly notes that it “almost invariably has a good sense” when it is used absolutely, as it is here, and especially when it is used in reference to a person. We are therefore justified in rendering it “dealt bountifully.”
83. A. A. Anderson, Book of Psalms, 130.
84. In ibid., 130, Anderson allows for both יגל and אשׁירה to be voluntative, but he does not take a strong stance either way, and he does not give the grammar even a superficial analysis. Westermann, Praise and Lament, 76, insists that אשׁירה is voluntative and form-critically represents the formal “vow of praise,” but he takes no position on יגל.
85. In a similar but not identical vein, Alexander, The Psalms Translated and Explained, 100, sees a “beautiful gradation in the clauses of this verse,” from a stated fact (“trusted”) to an expressed desire (“let my heart rejoice”) to a fixed purpose (“I will sing”).
86. Dahood, Psalms, 79.
87. A. A. Anderson, Book of Psalms, 130.
88. For Mays, Psalms, 80, this is the primary purpose of the psalmist.
89. Kraus, Psalms 1–59, 217.
90. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Psalms, 199.
91. Ibid., 201.
92. All Scripture quotations, apart from Psalm 13 itself, are taken from the NKJV.
93. Craigie, Psalms 1–50, 143.
94. Makrakis, Commentary on the Psalms of David, 89–90.
95. What follows is a poignant composition penned by 18th-century English Baptist Anne Steele (1717–1778). It is a “contemporary” interpretation of Psalm 13. Steele was no stranger to suffering: she spent most of her life in physical pain, incapacitated by the lingering effects of a childhood accident. Apparently, her fiancé died the very day they were to be married. Finally, her closest relationship in life was with her father, who lived with her and was a constant source of comfort and companionship. It is said that when he died, she never fully recovered emotionally. This poem comes from “Anne Steele’s ‘Psalm 13’: A Hymn to Be Mined,” PRSt 25 (Spring 1998): 127-28.