The Strategic Arrangement of Royal Psalms In Books IV–V

By Jinkyu Kim

[Jinkyu Kim is senior pastor at First Korean Church of Brooklyn, Brooklyn, N.Y. Formerly, he was adjunct professor at Nyack College, Manhattan, N.Y.]

The goal of this article is to identify the strategic arrangement of royal psalms in Books IV–V of the Psalter. It is already well known that royal psalms, such as Pss 2, 72, and 89, are strategically positioned at the seams of Books I–III.[1] Wilson demonstrated the significance of the strategic arrangement of these psalms.[2] However, no systematic study has been done regarding the arrangement of royal psalms as a whole in Books IV–V. Wilson failed to see the thematic movement from the royal psalms in Books I–III to those in Books IV–V because he did not detect the strategic arrangement of royal psalms in Books IV–V. Psalms scholarship (including commentators such as Hossfeld-Zenger, Mays, McCann, and Seybold) has depended heavily upon Wilson’s study up to this point; hence, it has failed to consider the thematic progress of the Davidic covenant and kingship from the strategically positioned royal psalms in Books I–III to those in Books IV–V.[3] If we succeed in finding a similar positioning technique in the last two books, it will provide a major breakthrough in our understanding of the message of royal psalms in these books as well as the message of the Psalter as a whole.

Before arguing for the strategic positioning of royal psalms in the last two books, we will first investigate whether one can study the last two books independently from the rest of the Psalter in terms of their organizational techniques. Second, in the last two books we will examine the existence of subgroups which are distinct from the book division. Third, we will explore the arrangement of the subgroups. Fourth, we will attempt to identify the structure of the last two books. Fifth and finally, we will determine whether or not the royal psalms in Books IV–V are strategically located in each subgroup as is the case with the strategic positioning of Pss 2, 72, and 89 in Books I–III.

I. Editorial Division between Books I–III and Books IV–V

Wilson has demonstrated a major editorial disjuncture between the first three and the last two books. In the first three books (Pss 2–89), the grouping by genre and author designations in the superscriptions appears predominant, while the last two books do not follow this rule.[4] Wilson enumerates the editorial differences of the last two books (Pss 90–150) as follows:

1. Organizational technique is distinctly different. 2. The use of hllwyh and hwdw psalms is restricted to the last two books. 3. The organizational use of author designations and genre categories is limited to Books One through Three. 4. The marked concentration of “titled” psalms in the first three books stands in direct contrast to the relative paucity of such psalms (28 out of 61) in the final books.[5]

On the basis of such evidence, Wilson concludes that the different organizational techniques between the first three books and the last two books “point to the possibility of a separate redactional history for these two segments and the editorial process which lies behind them.”[6] According to Avi Hurvitz, the linguistic data show the lateness of some of the psalms in the final third of the Psalter.[7] This linguistic evidence demonstrates that a different redactional stage was involved in the last two books of the Psalter.

Prominent marks of the book division in the first three books are not detected in the last two books. Authorship change is not noticed between Ps 106 (the end of Book IV) and Ps 107 (the beginning of Book V), because both psalms are untitled. In addition, even though there is a change of genre between Pss 106 and 107, many lexemic, phrasal, and thematic links are observable between them.[8] Except for הללויה(“Praise the Lord!”)[9] in the first verse of Ps 106, both psalms begin with virtually the same sentence, הדו ליהוה כי־טוב כי לעולם חסדו(“Oh give thanks to the LORD, for he is good, for his steadfast love endures forever!” [Ps 107:1]).[10] The exodus motif appears in both psalms.[11] An important thematic key word חסד(“steadfast love”)in Ps 106 (vv. 1, 7, 45) frequently occurs in Ps 107 (vv. 1, 8, 15, 21, 31, 43).[12] Thus, a strong division between Books IV and V is not detectable as opposed to the breaks between Books I–III. This is somewhat important evidence of the difference in redactional techniques between Books I–III and Books IV–V. The last two books, in light of such weighty evidence, may be treated as an independent unit and may be studied under the premise that the editor, in organizing them, used a grouping technique that differs from that of the first three books.[13] An investigation of the structure of Books IV–V will shed light on the organization of the subgroups within them.

II. The Structure of Books IV–V

There were probably various editorial stages in arranging the Psalter. The division of the Psalter into the five books scheme may be attributed to one editor, and the placing of royal psalms at the seams with doxological endings may be attributed to another editor. The book division between the fourth and the fifth may have originated from a different redactor, and the placing of subgroups of psalms in these two books may have derived from a different editor.[14] If we assume the existence of such editors, it will not be so difficult to explain the presence of distinctive organizational principles in arranging the subdivisions in Books IV–V in spite of the evident division between Books IV and V. In other words, the division between Books IV and V does not exclude the possibility that the editor can regroup subdivisions under a different organizational principle, while keeping the major book division. The presence of different organizational principles does not necessarily mean a contradictory relationship between them. There is weighty evidence that supports this view.

Below, the structure of the last two books will be analyzed from an easily recognizable group to a more complicated group. One of the most easily recognizable groups is the collection of doxological psalms in the last part of the Psalter.

1. Psalms 146–150

Many scholars assert that the group of Pss 146–150 forms an independent doxology concluding the whole Psalter. Doxological endings in ancient Near Eastern literature are a common phenomenon observable in hymnic types of writings including the Psalter. According to Wilson, Mesopotamian hymns and catalogues usually conclude sections and documents with doxologies.[15] His study of 11QPsa has produced a similar result in that the internal division is marked by the use of הללויה psalms.[16] A similar trend is observable in the Psalter. In Books I–III, each book concludes with a doxological ending. In the last two books of the Psalter, doxological psalms are mainly placed at the ends of subgroups. Wilson has identified the following doxological psalms: 104–106, 111–117, 135, 146–150.[17] Regarding the group of Pss 146–150, in particular, he asserts that it “serves to conclude the final book and the whole Psalter.”[18] The double use of הללויה at the end and beginning of each psalm in this group gives a unifying force within a psalm as well as between the psalms in this group. The group of the concluding doxologies as a unit, thus, functions as a conclusion to the entire Psalter.

2. Psalms 120–134

The group of “the Psalms of Ascent” has long been noted for its unity within this collection.[19] The consistent use of שיר המעלות(“A Song of Ascents”)in the title tends to combine Pss 120–134 into a unique group of psalms.[20] The psalms in this group are closely related with each other in their use of similar motifs such as “Zion,” “Jerusalem,” and “temple.”[21] In a thoroughly researched study on the coherence of “the Psalms of Ascent,” Viviers argues for its unity on the basis of the following literary features.[22] First, regarding the demarcation of the collection of the Psalms of Ascent, he says it “forms a unity in itself, formally and thematically, which is also confirmed” by the overall editorial heading, שיר המעלות.23 Secondly, in his form analysis of the Songs of Ascent, he concludes that an organic unity is observable throughout the collection.

Each maʿalôt psalm is short (except 132 which is in essence part of the collection) and emphasizes the single theme (“atmosphere”) of unconditional trust in Yahweh. The latter is communicated effectively by basically the same poetic techniques. A network of word repetitions, corresponding syntax, similar figures of speech and semantic similarities throughout the collection, confirms the unity of the collection.[24]

Thirdly, the same theology is detected throughout the collection. Yahweh’s saving activities depicted by creation motifs are presented by each of the Songs of Ascent.[25] From a different perspective, Satterthwaite also recognizes a coherence in the Songs of Ascent by the presence of a unifying theme, “YHWH’s restoration of Zion.”[26] Besides these reasons for the coherence of the Songs of Ascent, moreover, the following data provide a sense of unity according to Crow: (1) relatively short length of the poems (6.7 verses on average) in contrast to the longest Ps 119, and (2) the significantly different language of the songs from most other psalms.[27] Considering such weighty evidence and convincing claims, therefore, we can safely conclude that Pss 120–134 form an independent, coherent group of psalms.

III. Psalm 119

Psalm 119 is composed of 176 verses, which is larger than the total number of verses in the Psalms of Ascent (Pss 120–134). Therefore, it occupies enough space so as to have an independent status in Book V, even though it is a single psalm. It is a giant acrostic psalm that contains twenty-two strophes. Each strophe consists of eight lines. Psalm 119 is often classified as “a wisdom psalm” and has many features similar to other wisdom psalms such as Pss 1 and 19B.[28] Allen suggests that its setting might have been “in a background of Torah-oriented wisdom teaching.”[29] Westermann, placing Pss 1 and 119 in the same category of genre, contends that they might have once functioned as the framework of an earlier Psalter:

We may assume, then, that Ps. 1 and Ps. 119 form a framework around the intervening Psalms, one which denotes a definite stage in the process which produced our Psalter. We can say, therefore, that there was once a Psalter which began with Ps. 1 and ended with Ps. 119. Moreover, this framework bears witness to an important stage in the “traditioning” process in which the Psalter, as a collection, no longer had a cultic function primarily, but rather circulated in a tradition devoted to the law. The Psalms have now become the word of God which is read, studied, and mediated upon.[30]

As further evidence, Westermann points to the closing verse of Hos 14:9 in which the same “traditioning” process is operative from the wisdom perspective.[31] He believes that the Songs of Ascent (120–134) were added later to the collection framed by Pss 1 and 119.[32] In agreement with Westermann’s basic view on Ps 119, Childs likewise accepts its framing function, by which it is set apart from the neighboring psalms.[33] In addition, the independent nature of Ps 119 is evident both in its length and in its distinct content from the neighboring psalms. Linguistically, it is also set apart from the rest of the fifth book of the Psalter. The Hebrew verbs הלל (“praise”) and ידה (“give thanks”), which commonly appear in Book V, do not come into view in Ps 119.[34] In my opinion, Ps 119 is located in the center of the chiastic structure of subgroups of psalms in the last two books of the Psalter, just as Ps 19, the same type of wisdom psalm, is situated in the center of the chiasmus of the collection of Pss 15–24 in Book I.[35] The chiastic structure of Books IV–V centering on Ps 119 will be discussed later in this article.

4. Psalms 111–118

Psalms 111 and 112 are closely related to each other in that both are acrostic psalms and both start with the phrase, הללו יה. These psalms are also linked with Ps 113 in their use of הללו יה at the beginning. Starting with Ps 113, each of the so-called Egyptian Hallel Psalms (113–118) ends with the phrase הללו יה except 114 and 118. The absence of הללו יה in Pss 114 and 118 is compensated for by the triple or double use of it in their neighboring psalms (Pss 113, 115, and 117).[36] The חסד of Yahweh, which is the foundation of his covenant keeping (Ps 111:5, 9), appears repeatedly in the latter part of this group in Pss 115:1; 117:2; 118:1, 2, 3, 4, 29. Psalms 111 and 118 are also linked with each other in their use of the lexeme ידה in the first verse.

As mentioned above, the collection of Pss 113–118 has long been known as the Egyptian Hallel, which was recited in the three main Jewish holidays of “the festival of Unleavened Bread, the festival of Weeks, the festival of Tabernacles and also on the eight days of Hanukkah.”[37] Unexpectedly, Wilson groups Pss 111–117 together in the same doxological category, along with such הללויה psalms as Pss 146–150, 104–106, and 135.[38] After he identifies this subgroup of Pss 111–117, he groups Pss 118–135 as a separate unit. He seems to assume that Pss 111–117 and 135 conclude each subgroup.[39] However, the grouping of Pss 118–135 does not appear to be convincing in light of our observations in the previous section. The Psalms of Ascent (120–134) and Ps 119 retain their own internal unity rather than being combined with the preceding or following psalms. In my opinion, Westermann’s view appears to be more tenable than Wilson’s in that he groups the collection of Pss 111–118 as a unit. According to Westermann, the collection of Pss 111–118 contains independent psalms of praise (which are, in fact, not closely related to Pss 110 and 119 in terms of content and genre), though he acknowledges the later addition of Ps 118 to the earlier collection of Pss 111–117.[40] Later in this article, the grouping of Pss 111–118 will be further explained in light of the structure of the last two books of the Psalter and in terms of the strategic positioning of Ps 110.

5. Psalms 135–145

Apparently, the unity of Pss 135–145 cannot be easily detected in light of their differing contents, diverse genres, and the presence (Pss 138–145) and non-presence (Pss 135–137) of the attributed superscriptions. Psalms 135 and 136 are classified as “songs of praise,” while Ps 137 appears to be “a modified version of a Song of Zion.”[41] A few scholars regard Pss 135–137 as a kind of appendix to the collection of the Songs of Ascent in light of the thematic and lexemic links between them.[42] On the other hand, the grouping of Pss 138–145 is easily identifiable because all superscriptions in this subgroup contain the phrase לדוד (“of David”). The grouping of Pss 135–145 is proposed for the sake of convenience in that this group is located between the easily discernable collections of the Psalms of Ascent (120–134) and the final group of doxologies (146–150). Even though we group Pss 135–137 in the collection of the Songs of Ascent, it does not affect our central thesis, which is the strategic positioning of royal psalms followed by a doxology or doxologies.

6. Grouping of Psalms 90–110

There is an evident division between Pss 106 and 107 in this group according to the MT. The rationale for such a division would be, as the dominant tradition says, that the editor wanted to follow the “five books” scheme of the Torah. However, various reasons are enumerated in defense of a close connection between them, as stated previously. Recently, Koenen has demonstrated the unity of Pss 90–110 by a structural analysis. He argues that the group of Pss 90–110 is an independent but parallel-structured unit in which Pss 90–101 clearly display the ideas parallel to Pss 102–110.[43] He regards them as one unit, not as two separate units. And he verifies the existence of similar ideas between them and their gradual, eschatological movement as they move towards the ends of those parallel units.[44] Koenen says,

Now, it is, therefore, striking that Pss 102–110 in their structure correspond to Pss 90–101. This observation is pivotal since by it the two hypotheses—namely, that in Pss 90–101 on the one hand and in Pss 102–110 on the other, we are dealing with a composition—are able to support one another. At the same time, this observation shows that both compositions belong together, and therefore we can speak of one composition out of two parallel and synonymous parts.[45]

His main point is schematized as follows:[46]

Table 1: Parallel Structure of Pss 90–110

Part A	90–91	92	93	95	96–98	97	99–100	101
Part B	102	103	104	105– 107	108	109	109 (vv. 30f.)	110
Parallel ideas	Mourning for man’s transitoriness; Superscription of prayer (תפילה) in 90 & 102	Closing with a hymn; restricting the previous word of transi toriness	YHWH’s handling of creatures	YHWH’s handling of the history of Israel	YHWH’s reign; praying for the extermination of sinners and enemies	With reign of God, the extermination of sinners and enemies	The word of trust	Kingship psalm

 Regarding the positioning of Ps 110, Koenen appeals to Wilson’s theory of the strategic positioning of royal psalms at the ends of the books. He states,

With Ps 110, wholly in correspondence to Ps 101, a royal psalm stands at the end of the composition, which, in kingless times, had to be reinterpreted and was related to the righteous. They take on the king’s role, and YHWH will let them put their feet upon the enemy who are defined in this context as the wicked. A confirmation is granted to our thesis from the positioning of Pss 101 and 110 at the ends, in that the royal psalms in other places were also attested at the ends of collections (Pss 72; 89; cf. Ps 2 at the beginning of a collection).[47]

In my opinion, except for the corporate understanding of kingship, Koenen’s claim of the unity of Pss 90–110 makes sense in light of the undeniable parallels and the evident thematic development from the beginning to the end. Otherwise, this group of psalms appears to be a random arrangement of diverse kinds of psalms such as a psalm of Moses (90), a psalm of the Sabbath (92), Yahweh Malak psalms (93, 96–99), psalms of David (101, 103, 108–110), הללויה psalms (104–106), and so forth.[48]

7. Summary of the Structure of Books IV–V

If we summarize the structure of Books IV–V described above, we immediately recognize a structure centering on the giant wisdom psalm (Ps 119), which has been strategically positioned in the center of the composition. Wilson has already discovered the wisdom concern of the Psalter editor(s) along with the eschatological interest of the editor(s).[49] The wisdom psalm entrenched with torah motifs is closely related to royal psalms because the destiny of the Davidic covenant and kingship is primarily dependent on the king’s keeping of the torah. The structure of the last two books would be schematized as follows:

Pss 90–110 (Davidic Pss: 101, 103, 108–110)

Pss 111–118

Ps 119 (Giant Wisdom Ps)

Pss 120–134

Pss 135–145 (Davidic Pss: 138–145)

Pss 146–150 (Conclusion of the entire Psalter)

We observe a rough chiastic structure centering on Ps 119, which is enveloped by Davidic psalms in the first and last groups of psalms. What is important in this grouping, however, is that the royal psalms are located at the end or near the end of each group of psalms, except for the group of הלל psalms (111–118).[50] Each royal psalm is also followed by a doxological psalm or doxological psalms just as in the endings of Books I–III (though there is a great difference in the size of doxologies in Books IV–V).[51] In the subsequent section, the arrangement of the royal psalms in Books IV–V will be explored in detail.

IV. The Strategic Arrangement of Psalms 110, 132, and 144

Before we inspect the strategic arrangement of royal psalms in the last two books, we need to understand a basic theory about such an organization in the first three books. In this area of study, Wilson’s contribution is helpful as well. According to Wilson, Pss 2, 72, and 89 are strategically placed at the “seams” of Books I–III.[52] The absence of a royal psalm at the end of the first book (Ps 41) is attributed to “the redactional movement to combine Books One and Two into a single Davidic collection.”[53] Consequently, two major groups of psalms (2–72 and 73–89) are encircled by royal psalms. Moreover, each book clearly ends with a doxology (Pss 41:13; 72:18–19; 89:52; 106:48). Regarding the basic structure, therefore, it could be stated that the strategically positioned royal psalms are normally placed at the seams, and are usually followed by a concluding doxology (except Ps 2).[54]

Basic features of the doxology in Books I–III include the phrase ברוך יהוה (“Blessed be the Lord” [Pss 41:13; 72:18; 89:52]) and מןℵ מןℵ (“Amen and Amen” [Pss 41:13; 72:19; 89:52]). However, in Books IV–V the doxology mainly uses the expression הללו יה (Pss 111:1; 112:1; 113:1, 9; 115:18; 116:19; 117:1, 2; 146:1; 147:1; 148:1–4; 149:1; 150:1–6).[55] This emphasis is detected in the last verse of Ps 106 (the doxological ending of Book IV). Thus, it ends with הללו־יה along with ברוך־יהוה and מןℵ (v. 48). The doxology in Ps 106:48 appears to be a style mixed with the doxological characteristics of Books I–III and Books IV–V. In Book V, psalms such as 111–118, 134–136, 145, and 146– 150 are generally classified as doxological psalms.[56]

Now, let us examine whether royal psalms are placed at the end of each subgroup of psalms in Books IV–V and followed by a doxology. We should remember the difference between the editorial techniques of the last two books and the first three. There are technical differences in the last two books in the use of superscriptions, authorship attributions, key words (such as הלל and ידה), and shifting techniques (between Books IV and V). By the same token, it should be acknowledged that there are differences in positioning techniques for royal psalms and in the length and placement of doxological psalms. As we will observe below, the royal psalms in Book V do not follow strictly the principle of placement at the end of a group. They are at times placed near the end of the group. Also, the doxological endings of subgroups in Book V are far longer than the doxologies of the ends of Books I–IV.[57] The doxologies in the subgroups of Book V are, at times, longer than the length of a psalm (e.g., Pss 111– 118, 135–136, 145–150). However, the organization of royal psalms and doxologies in the subgroups of the last two books, in general, follows the basic principle of that of the first three books: thus, royal psalms are positioned at or near the end of the group, and are followed by a doxology or doxologies.

From Gunkel’s time on, Pss 101, 110, 132, and 144:1–11 in Books IV–V have been classified typically as royal psalms. Gunkel excluded Ps 144:12–15 from the category of the royal psalms, because his criterion of classification was based on the contents which “are concerned entirely with kings.”[58] However, Ps 144:12–15 should be considered as a part of the royal psalm because these verses, in my opinion, typologically describe the picture of eschatological blessings under the messianic king. Psalm 101 will not be treated separately here because it is dependent on the theme of Ps 110, as Koenen has proposed.[59] One thing to note is that Ps 101 is placed at the end of the subunit of Pss 90–101, according to Koenen’s study.

The original date of Ps 110, though unknown, seems to be very old considering its language and textual quality.[60] Allen proposes an early date for it, summarizing scholarly views as follows: “Most scholars opt for the period of the monarchy, generally in its early stages.”[61] It is commonly suggested that a Davidic king’s enthronement was its original setting.[62] The placement of the early monarchical royal psalm in Book V may have delivered a special message to the reader in the period when there was no king.

Psalm 110 is located at the end of the group of Pss 90–110 and is followed by a group of doxological psalms (111–118).[63] Thus, it seems to follow the general rule of the final placement of royal psalms followed by a doxology. A troublesome phenomenon here, however, is that a doxological psalm does not conclude the group of Pss 90–110. There is an evident sense of separation between Ps 110 and the following doxological psalms. Such a phenomenon can be explained from the following perspectives. First, Ps 110 has a special significance among the royal psalms, especially in light of its content. Forbes calls it “the most remarkable of David’s Psalms, the crowning revelation of all received by him from God.”[64] According to Mitchell, the eschatological victory won in the messianic warfare (which was so passionately longed for by the apocalyptically minded Jews in the Second Temple period) would require such long paeans of praise (111–118).[65] Second, there are some connections between Ps 110 and Ps 111 (if they are seen in light of a contextual understanding) though they stand apart. I would call the connections “strategic connections” because the ensuing meaning by such connections could only be understood by the strategic relationship between them. In this strategic relationship, the covenantal language in Ps 111:5, 9 would be understood as the fulfillment of Yahweh’s promise to David because the victory of the messianic conquest (Ps 110) is likely to be considered as Yahweh’s keeping his covenant promise. The praise, יזכר לעולם בריתו(“he remembers his covenant forever”) in Ps 111:5, is understood as a praise offered to Yahweh because he kept the covenant promise given to David (cf. 2 Sam 7:12–16) by defeating the enemy nations in Ps 110. The praise for Yahweh’s redemption of his people is also closely linked to צוה־לעולם בריתו(“he has commanded his covenant forever”) in Ps 111:9.

The divine judgment of the nations in Ps 110:6 is closely related with his giving נחלת גוים (“the inheritance of the nations”) to his people in Ps 111:6. Thus, Ps 111 acts to tie the doxological group of psalms (111–118) to Ps 110—the royal psalm which they follow—even though there is a gap in terms of their grouping (90–110 and 111–118). In this way, the entire doxological group of Pss 111–118, connected by the doxological key phrase הללו יה, functions as the closing psalms, praising the wonderful work of Yahweh (Ps 111:2) manifested in the victory of the Messiah in Ps 110. In fact, all key royal psalms in Book V are followed by an array of doxological psalms, not by a single psalm (if we disregard the boundaries of subgroups). Psalm 132 is followed by a group of doxological psalms (134–136). Psalm 144 is also followed by a group of doxological psalms (145–150). Therefore, it is not a peculiar phenomenon that Ps 110 is followed by a group of doxological psalms. This is another technique of arrangement by the editor of Books IV–V. The editor of the last two books exercised a great deal of freedom, in terms of length and location, in organizing the doxologies.

Psalm 132, another royal psalm in Book V, is placed near the end of the Songs of Ascent (120–134) and is followed by a doxological psalm (134) in this group. Psalm 132 has clear features of a royal psalm (vv. 11–12).[66] The doxological character of Ps 134 is attested by the double use of the doxological phrase ת־יהוהℵ ברכו (“bless the LORD” [vv. 1–2]).[67] If we regard Pss 135–136 as editorial additions to the Songs of Ascent, as Brennan suggests, the royal psalm appears to be followed by an array of doxological psalms (134–136), which is similar to the structure of Ps 110 and the following doxologies.[68]

The placement of Ps 132 near the end of this group may be explained in light of the different editorial technique used for royal psalms in Books IV–V. Here, however, we have a problem in arguing for the clear pattern of the strategic placement of a royal psalm followed by a doxology. Psalm 133 is sandwiched between Pss 132 and 134, and interrupts the expected pattern of a straightforward structure in which a royal psalm is followed immediately by a doxology. A solution for this problem is suggested here. Even though Ps 133 is placed between a royal psalm (132) and a doxology (134), all three psalms are closely related to each other by the motif of ציון (“Zion”[Pss 132:13; 133:3; 134:3]). In particular, the unity between Pss 132 and 133 is clear in light of the predominant theme of Zion.[69] Therefore, this unity between Ps 132 and Ps 133 seems to overshadow the presence of a break between Ps 132 and Ps 134. The presence of a strategically positioned royal psalm followed by a doxology largely satisfies our basic requirement for the strategic arrangement of royal psalms in Books IV–V.

Now we will treat the final royal psalm (144) in Book V. Regarding the issue of the genre of Ps 144, diverse opinions are suggested because of the evident difference of the last four verses from the rest. Gunkel treats Ps 144:1–11 and Ps 144:12–15 separately in his commentary.[70] It is generally agreed that the body of Ps 144:1–11 is a kind of reshaped psalm from Ps 18.[71] This body is commonly regarded as a royal psalm.[72] However, many are puzzled at the text of vv. 12–15. Gunkel regards it as “hymn” or “thanksgiving song of Israel.”[73] Kraus considers this part of the psalm as “a prayer of the king,” while he assigns the entirety of Ps 144 to “the category of royal psalms” in light of its theme.[74] A different approach is taken by Weiser, who looks upon Ps 144 as a unit and considers it “as a cultic liturgy intended for the royal feast.”[75] A major problem of interpretation arises from the theme of prosperity in Ps 144:12–15, which appears to be totally different from the preceding verses. As the textual evidence suggests, Ps 144:12–15 is, in fact, a picture of eschatological prosperity, which shows striking similarities to the eschatological motifs of Zech 14.[76] In short, Ps 144 as a whole is a royal psalm. In my opinion, vv. 12–15 portray a scene of eschatological blessings under the messianic king.

As previously stated, Ps 145 is a doxological psalm concluding the fifth book.[77] The use of הלל in vv. 2–3 and the frequent use of ברך (“bless”)in vv. 1, 2, 10, 21 with the divine name are indisputable evidence of the doxological nature of Ps 145. Hence, we observe that the arrangement of Pss 144 and 145 matches well with the principle of strategic positioning of royal psalms with a doxological ending.

IV. Conclusion

Summing up our analysis to this point, we can conclude that Pss 110, 132, and 144 are strategically located at or near the end of the group of psalms followed by a doxological psalm or a group of doxological psalms. Our understanding up to this point is charted here:

Table 2: Strategically Positioned Royal Psalms in Books IV–V

Psalm Group	Royal Psalm	Ending Doxology	Additional Doxologies
Pss 90–110	Ps 110	Ps 111	Pss 112–118
Pss 120–134	Ps 132 (Ps 133)[78]	Ps 134	(Pss 135–136)[79]
Pss 135–145	Ps 144	Ps 145	Pss 146–150

 As indicated in the table above, it is obvious that the royal psalms are immediately followed by a doxological psalm or a group of doxological psalms. Thus, it is highly likely that the royal psalms and doxological psalms in Books IV–V, as in Books I–III, were intentionally arranged by the Psalter editor(s) under the influence of the eschatological movement in the Second Temple period. By strategically arranging the royal psalms in Books IV–V, the editor(s) intended that all the Psalms in these books be understood eschatologically.

Notes

1. G. H. Wilson, “The Use of Royal Psalms at the ‘Seams’ of the Hebrew Psalter,” JSOT 35 (1986): 85-94; J. C. McCann Jr., “Books I–III and the Editorial Purpose of the Hebrew Psalter,” in The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter (ed. J. C. McCann Jr.; JSOTSup 159; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 93–107; P. D. Miller Jr., “The Beginning of the Psalter,” in The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter, 83–92; E. Zenger, “Der Psalter als Wegweiser und Wegbegleiter: Ps 1–2 als Proömium des Psalmenbuchs,” in Sie wandern von Kraft zu Kraft: Aufbrüche, Wege, Begegnungen; Festgabe für Bischof Reinhard Lettman (ed. A. Angenendt and H. Vorgrimler; Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1993), 29–47; Zenger, “Das Weltenkönigtum des Gottes Israels (Ps 90–106),” in Der Gott Israels und die Völker: Untersuchungen zum Jesajabuch und zu den Psalmen (ed. H. Merklein and E. Zenger; SBS 154; Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1994), 151–78; K. Koenen, Jahwe wird kommen, zu herrschen über die Erde: Ps 90–110 als Komposition (BBB 101; Weinheim: Beltz Athenäum Verlag, 1995), 110–11; D. C. Mitchell, The Message of the Psalter: An Eschatological Programme in the Book of Psalms ( JSOTSup 252; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 243–71.
2. See Wilson, “Royal Psalms at the ‘Seams,”’ 85–94.
3. F.-L. Hossfeld and E. Zenger, Die Psalmen I, Psalm 1–50 (NEchtB 29; Würzburg: Echter, 1993); James L. Mays, Psalms (IBC; Louisville: John Knox, 1994); J. C. McCann Jr., The Book of Psalms: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections (NIB 4; Nashville: Abingdon, 1996); Klaus Seybold, Die Psalmen (HAT 1/15; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996).
4. Wilson, “Royal Psalms at the ‘Seams,”’ 86.
5. Ibid., 87.
6. Ibid. Cf. G. H. Wilson, “The Use of ‘Untitled’ Psalms in the Hebrew Psalter,” ZAW 97 (1985): 404; Wilson, “The Shape of the Book of Psalms,” Int 46 (1992): 131-32. In another article, Wilson says, “We would have delineated two distinct segments of the Psalter—one (Psalms 2–89) characterized by a ‘Royal Covenantal Frame’, the other (Psalms 90–145) shaped by the concerns of wisdom” (“Shaping the Psalter: A Consideration of Editorial Linkage in the Book of Psalms,” in The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter, 80).
7. As quoted in Wilson, “The Shape of the Book of the Psalms,” 132. Hurvitz draws these two conclusions: “(1) We have found that three of the four doxologies (41, 14; 72, 18– 20; 106, 47–48)— the lines that divide the book of Psalms into its five sections—reflect postexilic phraseology. This indicates that the division into five sections was superimposed on the Psalter after the Exile. (2) We have found that all eight psalms which exhibit numerous late linguistic elements, and 16 of the 23 Psalms which contain isolated late linguistic elements, appear in the final third of the Psalter. This may provide some clues as to the way the book developed” (see A. Hurvitz, “Linguistic Criteria for Dating Problematic Biblical Texts,” Hebrew Abstracts 14 [1973]: 74-79).
8. L. C. Allen, Psalms 101–150 (WBC 21; Waco: Word, 1983), 49–53, 60–63. Scholars suggest various genre classifications for Pss 106 and 107, as Allen notes. Kraus classifies Ps 106 as a hymn while Gunkel classifies it as a communal complaint (H.-J. Kraus, Psalms 60–150: A Commentary [trans. H. C. Oswald; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989], 316–17; H. Gunkel, Die Psalmen [5th ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1968], 464–65). Allen suggests that the genre of Ps 107 is a song of thanksgiving (vv. 1–32) and a hymn (vv. 33–43). Kraus’s classification of Ps 106 and Allen’s classification of Ps 107:33–43 belong to the same category of genre, i.e., a hymn. Such an agreement indirectly shows that there is not a significant break between these two psalms in terms of their genre either.
9. All English Bible quotations are taken from the ESV.
10. The only difference is the use of a full ḥōlem in Ps 106:1 (הודו).
11. M. Dahood, Psalms III: 101–150 (AB 17A; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1970), 78–91; A. F. Kirkpatrick, The Book of Psalms (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1906), 637–46.
12. McCann (Psalms, 1116–17) scrutinizes the lexemic and conceptual links between Pss 106 and 107: “Psalm 107 opens Book V with what appears to be a direct response to the concluding plea of Book IV (see ‘gather[ed]’ in Pss 106:47; 107:3).... There are still more literary and conceptual links between Psalms 106 and 107—‘wonderful works’ (106:7, 22; 107:8, 15, 21, 24, 31), ‘rebel’ (106:7, 33, 43; 107:11), ‘redeemed’ (106:10; 107:2), ‘counsel’ (106:13; 107:11), ‘subjected’ (106:42; 107:12), ‘distress’/‘trouble’ (106:44; 107:2, 6, 13, 19, 28), ‘iniquity’ (106:43; 107:17). Indeed, Psalm 107 can be regarded as further illustration of the pattern evident throughout Psalm 106 and summarized in 106:43–46.”
13. Incidentally, there is a sign of a break between Pss 106 and 107. Ps 106 ends with a doxology like the endings of Books I–III. Regarding this issue, K. Seybold (Introducing the Psalms [trans. R. G. Dunphy; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1990], 17) asserts the secondary nature of the doxology: “In this last case [i.e., Ps 106:48], the positioning of the break is not so obvious. Besides, the general similarity to [Ps 41:13] points to a secondary formulation. It may be that the five-fold schema made it necessary to place this last division at a point which was rather less appropriate than the others. A break at the end of Ps. 119 would certainly have been more natural.”
14. An argument about the original division between Books IV and V goes beyond the scope of this article. In light of the editorial differences in dividing Books IV and V, there might have been a different redactor for the present division.
15. G. H. Wilson, The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter (SBLDS 76; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1985), 186.
16. Ibid. Cf. J. P. Brennan, “Some Hidden Harmonies of the Fifth Book of Psalms,” in Essays in Honor of Joseph P. Brennan (ed. R. F. McNamara; Rochester, N.Y.: Saint Bernard’s Seminary, 1976), 148. Brennan was also aware of the peculiarity of Pss 146–150 in that each of these psalms begins and ends with an exclamation of הללויה.
17. Wilson, Editing of the Hebrew Psalter, 187.
18. Wilson, “Royal Psalms at the ‘Seams,”’ 87. Wilson suggests that the group of Pss 146–150 “is liturgically motivated and finds its motivating force in the final verse of Ps 145:21, where David calls forth this great paean of praise with his exhortation” (Wilson, Editing of the Hebrew Psalter, 189).
19. Brennan, “Fifth Book of Psalms,” 137; B. S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 511–12; C. Westermann, Praise and Lament in the Psalms (trans. K. R. Crim et al.; Atlanta: John Knox, 1981), 252–53. Brennan contends that it “existed as an independent collection before it was incorporated into Book V in its present place” (137).
20. Brennan, “Fifth Book of Psalms,” 137. The only different heading is שיר למעלות in Ps 121:1, but the difference does not matter in this discussion, as Brennan points out.
21. K. Seybold, “Die Redaktion der Wallfahrtspsalmen,” ZAW 91 (1979): 247-68.
22. H. Viviers, “The Coherence of the Maʿalôt Psalms (Pss 120–134),” ZAW 106 (1994): 275-89.
23. Ibid., 277.
24. Ibid. Viviers presents an extensive list of word repetitions in the Songs of Ascent on pp. 278-79. Regarding the corresponding expressions, syntax, and figures of speech, he observes the repetitive uses of merismus, anacrusis, chiasmus, anadiplosis, inclusio, semantic-sonant-chiasmus, parallelism (internal, alternating, and Janus), anaphora, epiphora, refrains, ballast variant, sorites, etc.
25. Ibid., 284.
26. P. E. Satterthwaite, “Zion in the Songs of Ascents,” in Zion, City of Our God (ed. R. S. Hess and G. J. Wenham; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 105–28.
27. L. D. Crow, The Songs of Ascents (Psalms 120–134): Their Place in Israelite History and Religion (SBLDS 148; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996), 129–30. As Crow notes, the relative pronoun שֶׁ used ten times in these fifteen psalms and the remainder of the Psalms contain only eleven occurrences. Aramaisms and North Israelite Hebrew appear frequently in the Songs of Ascent as well.
28. Allen, Psalms 101–150, 139.
29. Ibid., 141.
30. Westermann, Praise and Lament, 253. This view (Westermann’s Lob und Klagen in den Psalmen originally appeared in 1965) has been followed by many scholars such as Childs, Miller, Mays, Creach, etc. Cf. Childs, Introduction, 511–13; Miller, “Beginning,” 86; J. L. Mays, “The Question of Context in Psalm Interpretation,” in The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter, 18; J. F. D. Creach, Yahweh as Refuge and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter ( JSOTSup 217; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1996), 16.
31. Westermann, Praise and Lament, 253.
32. Ibid.
33. Childs, Introduction, 511–13.
34. E. Zenger, “The Composition and Theology of the Fifth Book of Psalms, Psalms 107–145, ” JSOT 80 (1998): 78. Besides Ps 119, the peculiar psalms which do not have the verbs הללand ידהin Book V are Pss 110, 134, 137, 143, and 144. Curiously, two strategically positioned royal psalms are included in this group of psalms. This phenomenon may indicate that some of these psalms(including Ps 119) which do not have the verbs הלל and ידה might have been editorially arranged in Book V.
35. Cf. P. D. Miller Jr., “Kingship, Torah Obedience, and Prayer: The Theology of Psalms 15–24, ” in Neue Wege der Psalmenforschung: Für Walter Beyerlin (ed. K. Seybold and E. Zenger; HBS 1; Freiburg: Herder, 1994), 127–42. Miller states, “The focus upon Yahweh’s torah and obedience to its divine instruction is the touchstone for this collection [Pss 15–24]. Delight in the torah and obedience to it stand at the beginning and end of this collection in the torah entrance liturgies, Pss 15 and 24. The modified envelope or inclusio structure provided by the two psalms is one of the principal reasons for thinking of these ten psalms as a collection. It begins and ends with the identification of those who have access to Yahweh in the sanctuary as the ones obedient to torah. But that collection also places the joy in the torah at the center in the form of Ps 19” (127). I would rather classify the structure of Pss 15–24 as an unbalanced chiasmus because, as Miller notes, the royal psalms such as Pss 18, 20, and 21 encircle Ps 19 also (128).
36. In particular, the double use of הללו יה in Ps 113 at the beginning and end compensates for the absence of it in the beginning and end of the following psalm.
37. S. Zeitlin, “The Hallel: A Historical Study of the Canonization of the Hebrew Liturgy,” JQR 53 (1962): 22-29, esp. 22. Zeitlin suggests that the Hallel was “composed during the Persian period or even earlier” (24). His dating is based on linguistic data (e.g., the use of “the House of Yahweh” and the divine name יהוה). See also L. Finkelstein, “The Origin of the Hallel,” HUCA 23 (1950– 1951): 319-37; T. F. Torrance, “First of the Hallel Psalms,” EvQ 27 (1955): 36-41; Torrance, “Last of the Hallel Psalms,” EvQ 28 (1956): 101-8; Brennan, “Fifth Book of Psalms,” 133; S. Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israel’s Worship (trans. D. R. Ap-Thomas; 2 vols.; Nashville: Abingdon, 1962), 1:3.
38. Wilson, Editing of the Hebrew Psalter, 186–88. In spite of the weakness of Wilson’s grouping, he sees the unity of Pss 111–117, which assists us to develop our argument in line with Westermann’s view. In other words, the apparent presence of the Egyptian Hallel, in light of Wilson’s logic, does not hinder us from claiming that there is a unity between Pss 111–112 and Pss 113–118 (though one may acknowledge the editorial insertion of Ps 118).
39. Wilson, Editing of the Hebrew Psalter, 188.
40. Westermann, Praise and Lament, 255. Westermann thinks that Ps 117 used to be a concluding doxology for this group of psalms. Though Ps 110 is somewhat related to Ps 111, the lexemic and thematic connections are not particularly strong, as I pointed out previously. Only a contextual understanding of Ps 110 will demonstrate its connections with Ps 111. This issue will be discussed below.
41. McCann, Psalms, 1223; Allen, Psalms 101–150, 241.
42. Cf. McCann, Psalms, 1219–27. McCann claims, “Although the Songs of Ascents conclude with Psalm 134, it is as if the editors of the Psalter intended for Psalms 135–136 to articulate the praise invited by Ps 134:1–2. For instance, like Ps 134:1, Ps 135:1 addresses the worshipers as ‘servants,’ and ‘stand’ in Ps 135:2 also recalls Ps 134:1. Furthermore, Ps 135:19–21 uses the key word ‘bless’ (ברך bārak) from Psalm 134. Similar themes and concerns connect Psalms 135 and 136 (cf. 135:5 with 136:2–3; 135:8–12 with 136:10–22), prompting several scholars to suggest that Psalms 135–136 (and perhaps Psalm 137, since, like the Songs of Ascents, it features Zion) form an appendix to the Songs of Ascents” (1219).
43. Koenen, Jahwe wird kommen, 110.
44. Ibid., 8, 110–11, 129–30.
45. Ibid., 110. The original is as follows: “Auffällig ist nun, daß Ps 102–110 in ihrem Aufbau weithin Ps 90–101 entsprechen. Diese Beobachtung ist wichtig, denn durch sie vermögen sich die beiden Thesen, daß wir es bei Ps 90–101 auf der einen und bei Ps 102–110 auf der anderen Seite mit einer Komposition zu tun haben, gegenseitig zu stützen. Zugleich zeigt diese Beobachtung, daß die beiden Kompositionen zusammengehören und wir deswegen von einer Komposition aus zwei parallelen, ja synonymen Teilen sprechen können” (my translation appears in the text).
46. Ibid., 43-111; see esp. 110–11.
47. Ibid., 111. The original text reads: “Am Ende der Komposition steht mit Ps 110 ganz in Entsprechung zu Ps 101 ein Königslied, das in königsloser Zeit neu gedeutet werden mußte und auf die Gerechten bezogen wurde. Sie übernehmen die Rolle des Königs, und ihnen wird Jahwe die im Kontext als Frevler definierten Feinde zu Füßen legen. Eine Bestätigung erfährt unsere These von der Endstellung der Psalmen 101 und 110 dadurch, daß Königslieder auch anderenorts am Ende von Sammlungen belegt sind (Ps 72; 89; vgl. Ps 2 am Anfang einer Sammlung)” (my translation appears in the text). As regards this quotation, I do not agree with Koenen’s reinterpretation of the king’s role as the righteous. The hope for a Davidic king did not disappear in the last book of the Psalter (e.g., Ps 132).
48. Regarding the interpretation of Ps 101, refer to my dissertation, “Psalm 110 in Its Literary and Generic Contexts: An Eschatological Interpretation” (Ph.D. diss., Westminster Theological Seminary, 2003), 117–21. A corporate understanding of kingship in Ps 101 is untenable in light of my contextual reading.
49. Wilson, “Shaping the Psalter,” 72–82.
50. Ps 119 is a single psalm; therefore, it does not have a space for a royal psalm.
51. The larger size of doxologies in Books IV–V may be attributable to the difference of the editorial technique.
52. Wilson, “Royal Psalms at the ‘Seams,”’ 85–94.
53. Ibid., 87; see also Wilson, Editing of the Hebrew Psalter, 208. A redactional mark is clearly indicated in Ps 72:20: בן־ישי כלו תפלות דוד (“The prayers of David, the son of Jesse, are ended”).
54. Ps 2 functions differently from the other strategically placed royal psalms, because it plays a role of “introduction” for Books I–II and the entire Psalter.
55. See Myers’s article for the characteristics of “doxology” (A. C. Myers, “Doxology,” ISBE 1:989–90).
56. Westermann, Praise and Lament, 256; D. M. Howard Jr., The Structure of Psalms 93–100 (BJSUC 5; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1997), 4; D. M. Howard Jr., “Recent Trends in Psalms Study,” in The Face of Old Testament Studies: A Survey of Contemporary Approaches (ed. D. W. Baker and B. T. Arnold; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999), 335–36. Westermann regards Ps 134 as the concluding doxology of the Songs of Ascent (120–134). Howard indicates that Ps 145 is an actual doxological ending in Book V. Most scholars consider Pss 146–150 as the doxological conclusion of the whole Psalter.
57. Here, the doxological ending in Book IV, as previously stated, is attributed to an editorial hand other than the final, grouping editor.
58. H. Gunkel, Introduction to Psalms: The Genres of the Religious Lyric of Israel (trans. J. D. Nogalski; Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1998), 99; emphasis is Gunkel’s.
59. Koenen, Jahwe wird kommen, 110–11.
60. Cf. E. R. Hardy Jr., “The Date of Psalm 110, ” JBL 64 (1945): 385-90.
61. Allen, Psalms 101–150, 83.
62. Cf. T. N. D. Mettinger, King and Messiah: The Civil and Sacral Legitimation of the Israelite Kings (ConBOT 8; Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1976), 259; A. Caquot, “Remarques sur le Psaume 110, ” Sem 6 (1956): 51.
63. Koenen, Jahwe wird kommen, 43–130.
64. J. Forbes, Studies on the Book of Psalms (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1888), 183. Forbes notes that “a superhuman character” had been ascribed to “the Messianic King.”
65. Mitchell, Message of the Psalter, 266.
66. Cf. Allen, Psalms 101–150, 206.
67. Cf. ibid., 217.
68. Brennan, “Fifth Book of Psalms,” 137. However, in this study Pss 135–137 are grouped with the following eight Davidic psalms in light of the obvious self-contained unit of the Songs of Ascent.
69. Cf. J. Schreiner, Sion-Jerusalem Jahwes Königssitz: Theologie der Heiligen Stadt im Alten Testament (Munich: Kösel, 1963), 174–79. Schreiner even claims that Ps 132 is more about Zion than about David. See also Allen (Psalms 101–150, 214) who says Ps 133 “is probably to be regarded as a Song of Zion influenced by wisdom characteristics.”
70. Gunkel, Psalmen, 604–9.
71. E. Baumann,”Struktur-Untersuchungen im Psalter. 2, ” ZAW 62 (1949–1950): 148-51; Allen, Psalms 101–150, 289.
72. Gunkel, Introduction, 99; Allen, Psalms 101–150, 290.
73. Gunkel, Psalmen, 607.
74. Kraus, Psalms 60–150, 540–41.
75. A. Weiser, The Psalms: A Commentary (trans. H. Hartwell; OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962), 823–25.
76. Cf. S. L. Cook, “Apocalypticism and the Psalter,” ZAW 104 (1992): 97-98. Cook treats the use of words such as נגע (“plague”), המם (“uproar”), and חין (“arrow”) in terms of apocalypticism.
77. Zenger, “Composition,” 78. Pss 146–150 are regarded as the conclusion of the entire Psalter.
78. Previously I noted the strong unity between Pss 132 and 133. For this reason, I include Ps 133 here in parenthesis.
79. Pss 135–136 are included in the group of Pss 135–145 in our analysis; however, Pss 135–136 can be regarded as a part of the group of doxological psalms (134–136) following the royal psalm 132, if we consider Books IV–V as a whole.