Understanding Psalms (part i)

Introduction
In order to evaluate the usefulness of the form-critical approach to understanding the message of the psalms, we will need to examine the contributions of influential form-critical scholars, trace the development of their understanding throughout the twentieth century, and discuss the significance of their findings for the present day reader of the psalms.

Overview of Contributions

Before the middle of the nineteenth century much psalm analysis had been made on the basis of title or content ⁱ. A number of early commentators had made embryonic classifications ⁱⁱ in terms of praise, lamentation, petition and the like, but in the ever increasing light of ancient Near Eastern studies these basic groupings were considered by many writers to be inadequate ⁱⁱⁱ.

The scholar responsible for pioneering a fresh approach to studying the psalms at the beginning of the twentieth century was Hermann Gunkel. In his own words Gunkel was concerned to 'bring order to these multifarious texts'^iv. This conviction propelled his thinking in two directions. First of all he attempted to identify what Kidner helpfully refers to as the 'living context'^v (Sitz im Leben) of the psalms. Secondly, he developed a new system^vi of classification for the psalms - classification according to literary type or genre (Gattungen). Gunkel identified five major categories^vii (see fig.1 below) and a number of minor ones. This foundational method of analysis using form or structure is widely recognized today as form-criticism.

fig.1

The 'penetrating insights'^viii of Gunkel laid the foundations for much subsequent scholarship to build upon. R K Harrison in his extensive and influential Introduction to the Old Testament lists a dozen such scholars by the end of the nineteen sixties^ix. One such scholar was a student of Gunkel by the name of Sigmund Mowinckel. Mowinckel's contribution to psalm analysis centred on understanding the relationship between the Israelite cult and the psalms. In his own words, he sought 'to form as complete and vivid a picture as possible of the old Israelite and Jewish cult'^x. Sometimes known as the cult-historical^xi approach, Mowinckel argued that many of the psalms were intimately bound up with an elaborate New Year Festival, where the nation remembered the drama of creation and celebrated the enthronement of Yahweh^xii. Psalms that he could not attach to this particular cultic setting, Mowinckel assigned to numerous other Temple rituals.
Many subsequent scholars have been greatly influenced by Mowinckel's 'virile and imaginative'^xiii work, particularly with reference to the importance of the cultic setting^xiv. One notable example is Artur Weiser who, like Mowinckel, concentrated on the pre-eminence of a single festival. Weiser, however, identified it as the Covenant Festival of Yahweh^xv not the New Year Festival. A more recent example is Edward Gerstenberger, who locates most of the psalms not in the pre-exilic temple but in the post-exilic synagogue^xvi.

A third important development in the field of psalm analysis, after Gunkel and Mowinckel, has been contributed by Claus Westermann. There is a helpful precis of Westermann's proposition in Walter Brueggemann's theological commentary on the psalms: 'Following the form analysis of Gunkel and ignoring the liturgical hypothesis of Mowinckel, Westermann has urged that the lament is the basic form of psalmic expression, and that most other psalm forms are derived from or responses to the lament.^xvii'

Brueggemann clearly understood Westermann's theory as a dramatic simplification of the psalm categories into one basic type, the lament, within which other forms could be recognized, but only in a derivative sense. Westermann himself saw the Psalms of Praise and Lament as belonging together in 'a polar relationship'^xviii, which led Seybold to suggest two basic types^xix of psalm rather than one. However, for Westermann the importance of this polarity lay not in the reduction of types, but in the recognition of praise and lament in every type of psalm.^xx

Building on Westermann's discovery of 'a literary dynamic…that corresponds to and gives voice to the dynamic of faith'^xxi, Walter Brueggemann has proposed a postcritical approach to the psalms. Postcritical in that he has consciously allowed the devotional and scholarly traditions to complement one another. Bruggemann's approach has been to divide the Psalter into three major categories (see fig.2 below) and to concentrate his attention on 'the two decisive moves of faith.'^xxiii The first move being 'out of a settled orientation into a season of disorientation', and the second move being 'from a context of disorientation to a new orientation'.^xxiv

fig.2

Brueggemann has suggested that the patterns of movement he has detected in the psalms reflect the realities of human life lived in the context of a faith relationship with Yahweh. For this reason Brueggemann's approach has often been dubbed 'pastorally orientated'^xxv. This pastoral dimension is quite deliberate and flows naturally out of Brueggemann's concern to see the psalms used as real voices of living faith within the community of believers^xxvi.

Assessment of Usefulness

The development of the form-critical approach to studying the psalms has made a useful contribution to the modern readers' understanding of the Psalter in the following way:

The pioneering work done by Gunkel forced scholars to re-appraise both the origin and function of the psalms^xxvii and in so doing generated a fresh approach to psalm interpretation^xxviii. Gunkel's approach was to rigorously pursue, not only the content of the psalms^xxix, but also the form and the setting of the psalms, allowing both of them to inform his interpretation of the Psalter. It is this distinctive approach that many scholars believe has provided the modern day reader with a useful key to unlock the meaning of the Psalter. One such scholar is Klaus Seybold. In his introduction to the psalms Seybold presents Gunkel's method as a triangular schema (see fig.3 below).

fig.3

In Seybold's assessment this schema 'has proved itself methodologically and can be used as a rule of thumb for all texts orientated towards actual use.' ^xxx The usefulness of the form-critical approach can be clearly seen, therefore, in what it provides for the modern day reader of the psalms. According to Seybold it provides a helpful framework within which the modern day reader can begin to question the text in a critical way and so further his 'understanding of the development of the individual psalms, the real aim of all Psalm research.'^xxxi

As well as providing a useful methodology, the form-critical approach to understanding the Psalter also encourages pastoral application of the psalms to the life of faith. It is Walter Brueggemann who fully develops this line of thought in his book 'The Message of the Psalms':

I have grouped the psalms in this way to try to make a point that is decisive for pastoral experience: the lives of people and of communities are never static. They are always on the move, and I have structured it, either into orientation or out of orientation. Both moves are helped by pastoral sensitivity, theological honesty, and liturgical, rhetorical drama of the texts themselves. That is why I have organized this study in this way. Human experience strangely corresponds to the flow and form of these texts. ^xxxii

Brueggemann's approach is useful for the modern day reader of the psalms because it brings full circle the form-critical process of interpretation set in motion at the beginning of the twentieth century. He does this by making the important hermeneutical journey back from the biblical text to the life of faith, so that the modern day reader of the psalms can make useful pastoral applications into his own life and into the life of the believing community.

One such application could be the realization that ancient believers lived in a world that quite often disorientated their faith, and that they poured out the contents of their disorientation to the Lord. This simple application could provide tremendous encouragement for a modern day believer, disorientated by the unpredictable circumstances of life. It might give him the 'biblical permission' he needs to pour out the agony of his soul to God without feeling that he is being unfaithful to God in so doing.^xxxiii

Having outlined two very useful ways that form-criticism has helped modern day readers to understand the message of the psalms, it would be fair to say that scholarly opinion regarding the value of the entire form-critical approach ranges from being openly supportive to constructively critical. Seybold and Brueggemann are perhaps representative of the most positive assessments,^xxxiv but the prevailing note of caution from a number of other commentators warrants further consideration.

While there is a general recognition among scholars of the inherent value in studying the psalms from a functional perspective,^xxxv caution arises from the fact that not every psalm can be analyzed using these criteria.^xxxvi This has caused some commentators to accuse form-critical scholars of imposing alien structures onto the canonical shape of the Psalter,^xxxvii which ultimately obscure the message of the psalms rather than enhance it.

A second note of caution highlights an over-dependency on one or other of Gunkel's emphases. For example, an over-reliance on the importance of the setting could lead to 'gross subjectivism'^xxxiii regarding the interpretation of a psalm. This is a genuine concern for some scholars because certainty regarding the historical circumstances of any particular psalm can be an elusive reality, and the weight of evidence supporting a specific setting can be seriously criticized.^xxxix

A third note of caution comes from the 'small print of the psalms.' ^xl The argument is that many form-critical scholars have been too quick to dismiss the internal evidence offered by the titles of the psalms. These superscriptions appear to contain valuable information about the origin and function of the psalms in the Israelite cult.^xli For example, the seventy-three psalms connected with David could have been composed by an individual from first hand experience. The direction of composition could have flowed from the life of David to the cult of Israel, rather than simply originating within the Israelite cult itself. This proposition, Kidner concludes, has been rejected for 'no compelling reasons.'^xlii

Conclusion

As a modern day reader of the psalms I find Gunkel's methodology a useful tool that sharpens my own understanding of the message of the psalms. It provides me with a succinct framework of analysis within which I can question the text in a critical but constructive way. This form-critical emphasis also balances my more devotional reading of the psalms.

However, I would recommend taking two precautions while using this method. Firstly, we need to give it the flexibility it deserves. This is not an infallible method of interpretation and so cannot be applied rigidly.^xliii Secondly, we must remember to make some pastoral applications, because a method of interpretation that completely disconnects the modern day reader from the relevance of the psalms will be of little value to him.

It is in this area that I have found Brueggemann's approach the most helpful. While Brueggemann retains many of Gunkel's original types, he places them in a pastoral context. This pastoral dimension helps me to travel back from the historical context of the psalms and apply their message to my own 'life of faith' as the reader (see fig.4).

fig.4

In the final analysis, form-criticism is still in its infancy,^xliv only one-hundred years old. Even so, it has still made a significant contribution to the field of psalm analysis in the twentieth century. In my opinion the most useful contribution has been a new methodology. A schema pioneered by Gunkel; developed by Mowinckel; simplified by Westermann; and applied by Brueggemann.

Endnotes

ⁱDumbrell, 1988, p. 210.
ⁱⁱFor a concise treatment of two earlier systems of psalm classification see Seybold, 1990, p. 110-1.
ⁱⁱⁱHarrison, 1969, p. 990.
^ivQuoted by Seybold, 1988, p. 109.
^vKidner, 1973, p. 7.
^viFor a helpful assessment of Gunkel's system see Seybold, 1990, p112-22.
^viiAll the major commentaries carry outlines of Gunkel's categories. See for example Willem A VanGemeren, 1991, p. 12.
^viiiHarrison, 1969, p. 992.
^ixHarrison, 1969, p. 992-3.
^xQuoted by Kidner, 1973, p. 8.
^xiCraigie, 1983, p. 46.
^xiiFor a stimulating critique of Mowinckel's theory see Harrison, 1969, p. 993-6.
^xiiiHarrison, 1969, p. 995.
^xivJ Day clearly holds Mowinckel responsible for an enormous shift in scholarly opinion regarding the cultic interpretation of the psalms. Day, 1992, p. 15.
^xvWeiser, 1962, p. 26-7.
^xviDay, 1992, p. 15.
^xviiBrueggemann, 1984, p. 18.
^xviiiQuoted by Seybold, 1990, p. 120.
^xixSeybold, 1990, p. 120.
^xxQuoted by Seybold, 1990, p. 120.

xxiBrueggemann, 1984, p. 18.
^xxiiBrueggemann, 1984, p. 16.
^xxiiiBrueggemann, 1984, p. 20.
^xxivBrueggemann, 1984, p. 20.
^xxvVanGemeren, 1991, p. 13.
^xxviBrueggemann, 1984, p. 10.
^xxviiKidner, 1973, p. 7.
^xxviiKidner, 1973, p.7.
^xxixGunkel has been criticized for inconsistency because some of his categories are established on the basis of content not form. See Day, 1992, p. 13.
^xxxSeybold, 1990, p. 119.
^xxxiSeybold, 1990, p. 119.
^xxxiiBrueggemann, 1984, p. 125.
^xxxiiiFor a stimulating introduction to this, and related, applications see Brueggemann, 1984, p. 51-3.
^xxxivSeybold, 1990, p. 109-24; Brueggemann, 1984, p. 15-23.
^xxxvDumbrell, 1988, p. 208.
^xxxviCraigie, 1983, p. 47.
^xxxviiVanGemeren, 1991, p. 13; Harrison 1969, p. 997.
^xxxviiiHarrison, 1969, p. 996.
^xxxixFor example, Harrison's critique of Mowinckel's hypothesis concludes as follows: 'It must therefore be concluded that the speculations of Mowinckel suffer from one grave deficiency: they cannot be supported by any objective evidence.' (1969, p. 996).
^xlKidner, 1973, p. 17.
^xliKidner, 1973, p. 16.
^xliiKidner, 1973, p. 17.
^xliiiSeybold reminds us that Gunkel was well aware of the inadequacies in his system. See Seybold, 1990, p. 121.
^xlivQuoted by VanGemeren, 1991 p. 13.

Bibliography

W Brueggemann, The Message of the Psalms (Augsburg, 1984).
P C Craigie, Word Biblical Commentary Psalms 1-50 (Word, 1983), pp. 25-56.
J Day, Psalms (Sheffield Academic Press, 1992).
W J Dumbrell, The Faith of Israel (Apollos, 1988), pp. 207-14.
J H Eaton, Psalms (SCM, 1967). pp. 13-28.
R K Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament (Tyndale, 1969), pp. 976-1003.
D Kidner, Psalms 1-72 (IVP, 1973), pp. 1-46.
T Longman III, How to Read the Psalms (IVP, 1988).
K Seybold, Introducing the Psalms (T&T Clark, 1990).
W A VanGemeren, Expositor's Commentary:Psalms (Zondervan, 1991), pp. 3-51.
A Weiser, The Psalms (SCM, 1962), pp. 19-101.
C Westermann, Praise and Lament in the Psalms (John Knox Press, 1981).