Next Step Bible Study

Psalm 29, continued

Hymn: Verses 3-9, cont.

Here again is an outline for the chiastic-concentric structure of the hymn, as I have analyzed it (cf. Part 1), with its five tricola:

• • Strophe 1 (v. 3)—YHWH’s Divine majesty demonstrated by His control over the waters (in the heavenly realms)
    • Strophe 2 (v. 4-5a)—YHWH’s power and majesty as the storm strikes the land/earth (breaking the great cedars)
      • Strophe 3 (v. 5b-6)—The effect of the storm on the land (region of Lebanon/Siryon)
    • Strophe 4 (vv. 7-8)—YHWH’s power/presence as the storm strikes the land (causing the outback to whirl/writhe)
  • Strophe 5 (v. 9)—YHWH exercises His power and majesty over the earth/land (from his heavenly palace)

The first three strophes (vv. 3-6) were examined in Part 2 of this study.

Verses 7-8

“(The) voice of YHWH is cutting (with) flames of fire,
(the) voice of YHWH makes (the) outback whirl,
YHWH makes whirl (the) outback of (the) Holy (place)!”

As previously discussed, verse 7 consists of a single line, which creates something of a problem for commentators who understand the hymn (at least vv. 4-8) to be comprised of bicola (couplets) rather than tricola; in such a format, v. 7 appears to be ‘missing’ a line. The problem has been addressed either by (i) transferring v. 7 to different location in the hymn, or (ii) restoring a second line to the verse and thus produce a couplet (see the summary of restoration-proposals by Avishur, pp. 95-7). Dahood (pp. 174, 178) moves v. 7 ahead of v. 6, so that it immediately follows v. 5b, thus clearly relating it to the “breaking apart” of the cedar-trees; this is, I believe, the principal point of reference, but it is not necessary to rearrange the lines of the hymn in order to facilitate the correspondence. Cross (p. 154) adopts the elegant but questionable solution of moving v. 9c to follow v. 7, thus creating/restoring a couplet at this point in the hymn.

By recognizing a series of tricolon-strophes for the hymn (see above; cf. also Pardee, pp. 154ff), the problem of the ‘missing’ line effectively disappears. Verses 7-8 constitute a tricolon, with an extended 4-beat (4+4+4) meter. However, there are still difficulties with regard to the text and meaning of the lines.

The first of these points of difficulty involves the occurrence of the verb bx^j* in line 1 (v. 7). As with the presumably related verb bf^j* (I), the basic meaning is “cut” —either in the sense of (a) “cut out” (i.e., hew, as of stone), (b) “cut down” (wood, or a person [i.e., to slay]), or (c) “cut off”. Cf. the cognates, Akkadian ḫaṣābu (“cut off”), Ugaritic ḫṣb, (“cut down”), Arabic ḥaṭaba (“cut [down] wood, gather wood”, cp. Ugaritic ḥṭb, “wood-gatherer”); HALOT, pp. 306, 342. The parallel with v. 5 clearly indicates that the idea of “cutting down wood [i.e., a tree]” is in view. Indeed, in terms of the chiastic structure of the hymn (see above), v. 7 corresponds with v. 5a, and so the imagery is almost certainly that of the powerful storm, with its thunder and lightning, striking amid the trees of the land.

While v. 5a only alluded to the storm’s lightning, it is explicitly referenced here in the expression “flames of fire” (va@ tobh&l^)—viz., the lightning itself, and also the fire that is produced when it strikes the trees. And yet the syntax of the line is a bit uncertain. At first glance, the expression appears to be the direct object of the verb bx^j* (“cut, chop”, see above), in which case the action could be that of YHWH producing the lightning (i.e., sparks) by “chopping” at a piece of stone (flint, etc.); this is the interpretation favored by Pardee (p. 168), cf. also Mittmann (pp. 179-81). Again, however, the parallel with v. 5a suggests an instrumental object/accusative, i.e., YHWH is “cutting down” (the trees, etc.) with His lightning bolts (“flames of fire”); cf. the discussion by Kloos, pp. 39-40. Fensham (p. 91) suggests that an initial prefixed b preposition (“with”, i.e., tobhlb, “with flames of…”) might have dropped out of the text. Freedman (p. 252) explains its omission in relation to the final b on the preceding verb (bxj); it could have dropped out by haplography, or the b on the verb could serve double-duty in the text (functioning simultaneously as the initial b of the following word).
Edward L. Greenstein, in his article “YHWH’s Lightning in Psalm 29:7” (Maarav 8 [1992], pp. 49-57), argues that bx@j) (“[is] cutting/chopping”) should be emended to wyX*j! (“His arrows”), viz., the lightning bolts depicted as “arrows” shot by YHWH from His ‘bow’; cf. Ps 18:15[14] (par 2 Sam 22:15), also Ps 7:14[13]; 64:8[7]; 77:18[17]; 144:6.

The imagery in verse 8 is similar to that in verse 6, where the storm causes the mountains (of Lebanon and Siryon) to “leap/jump”. Here, the storm causes the flatlands (of the steppe) to “whirl” (vb lyj!). The twisting (rotating) action indicated by this verb can also be translated “writhe”, with specific reference to the writhing of a woman in labor (see below on v. 9a). The locative noun rB*d=m! is often translated “desert”, but the proper meaning is “place out back”, i.e., “outback” or “hinterland”. The translation “desert” is inappropriate here, unless it is understood in the sense of a deserted area (i.e., generally devoid of human inhabitants). The rendering “wilderness” is more acceptable, although here the specific contrast with the mountains (in vv. 5-6) suggests a grassy flatland (or steppe/plain)—semi-desolate, but fertile enough to serve as a pasture-land for the grazing of animals.

There is much debate among commentators regarding the final word of verse 8, vd@q*: is it meant as a specific place name (Qadeš), or is it a descriptive term (“Holy [place]”, “Sanctuary”)? If a place/site name is meant, it is unlikely to be the southern Qadeš (-barnea); rather, the proximity to the Lebanon (and Antilebanon) mountains, strongly favors Qadeš on the Orontes (Tell en-Nebi Mend, cf. Egyptian Qadšu, El Amarna Kidša [HALOT, p. 1075]). However, there could be other sites designated as vd@q*, even as there are at least seven sites called vd#q# (Qedeš) attested in the Scriptures (including the northern Khirbet el-Qadīs, Tell Qedes, and Tell Abu Qudēs). I have translated the word vd@q* according to its fundamental meaning, i.e., “holy (place)”, while recognizing that, in light of the specific geographic locations in v. 6 (Lebanon/Siryon), a similar northern/Syrian location is likely intended here (probably a steppe region in the vicinity of Qadeš on the Orontes). The expression “outback of (the) holy (place)” could perhaps be condensed as “(the) holy outback”, even though vdq in v. 8, as vocalized by the Masoretes (vd@q*) must be read as a noun rather than an adjective; cf. Pardee, p. 169f.
The same expression, mdbr qdš, is found in a text from Ugarit (CAT/KTU 1.23, line 65), which would tend to confirm the northern point of reference; it clearly refers to a grassy steppe (šd) region more suitable for hunting than for agriculture. 

Verse 9

“(The) voice of YHWH makes (the birthing) deer writhe,
and pours out water (on the) thickets—
and in His palace all His weight (is) showing forth!”

Verse 9, the concluding tricolon of the hymn is highly problematic, both metrically, and in terms of the meaning of the lines. The first two lines (9ab) contain mixed imagery that many commentators find unsuitable when set in parallel; moreover, the relationship between these two lines and the final line (9c) is not immediately clear.

As to the mixed imagery in the first two lines, emendations have been proposed to make the parallelism more consistent (and synonymous); cf. Loretz, pp. 122-5. One option is to revocalize MT tolY`a^ (“[female] deer”) in line 1 to read instead tolya@ (“oaks”); cf. Day, p. 58; Kloos, p. 41. Verse 9ab then continues the imagery of the prior verses in describing the storm’s traumatic effect on the trees:

“(The) voice of YHWH makes (the) oaks writhe,
and strips bare (the tree)s (of the) thicket”

A second option is to emend MT toru*y+ (“thickets, forests”) in the second line to read tolu&y~ (“[female] mountain goats”):

“(The) voice of YHWH makes (the) deer writhe,
and hastens (the birth of the) goats”

This is the approach favored by a number of modern commentators, including Kraus (p. 345), Avishur (pp. 100-1), and Müller (pp. 112-3); cf. also G. Barbiero, “The Two Structures of Psalm 29”, Vetus Testamentum [VT] 66 (2016), pp. 378-92 [380]. In its favor is the comparable parallel in Job 39:1 (cf. also Prov 5:19); the cognate nouns aylm and y‘lm are also set in parallel in an Ugaritic text (Baal Epic Tablet VI [CAT/KTU 1.6], col. i, lines 24-27). Also, it should be noted that the feminine plural form toru*y+ is most unusual (occurring only here), the masculine plural <yr!u*y+ or the collective singular ru^y~ otherwise being used. This could serve as a further argument in favor of the original text being tolu&y~ (“[female] goats”). Interestingly, that same meaning might be assigned to the MT without emendation, as a few commentators have related toru*y+ here to Arabic yaʿr (“goat”); cf. HALOT, p. 423, and the article by H. Strauß, “Zur Auslegung von Ps 29 auf dem Hintergrund seiner kanaanäischen Bezüge”, Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft [ZAW] 82 (1970), pp. 91-102 [96].

However, based on the chiastic structure of the hymn, verse 9 corresponds with verse 3, both metrically and thematically. Thus, we might expect some reference to YHWH’s control over the waters. Therefore, I would suggest that the imagery here in verse 9 is to the coming of the rains, as the climax and culmination of the thunderstorm. In particular it is the spring rains that are in view, as indicated by the seasonal reference to the deer/goats giving birth (i.e., “writhing” in labor, vb lyj! [translated “whirl” in v. 8, cf. above]). Correspondingly, at this time, water is “poured out” onto the forest thickets where the deer and other animals dwell. It is thus possible to retain the mixed imagery of v. 9ab in the MT as describing the coming of the spring rains, which water the trees (and other vegetation) while also coinciding with the time that animals give birth—a comprehensive portrait of life-bestowing fertility. The destructive strength of the storm is also part of the fertility it brings to the land.
This interpretation of v. 9ab contrasts with the one given (briefly) in my earlier study on this Psalm. 

There are several distinct roots and meanings for the verb [c^j*, as indicated by the different translations presented above. Root I (HALOT, p. 359) has the divergent (but related?) meanings “pour water” (cf. Ugaritic ḥsp, Arabic ḥasufa) and “strip off/away” (cf. Arabic š/saḥafa). A proposed second root (II) has been connected with Arabic ḥašafa (“hurry/hasten”), with the contextual meaning (Piel, here in v. 9) of “hasten the birth” of an animal (cp. the noun [c!j* in 1 Kings 20:27). I understand the usage of the verb here according to the meaning “pour water” (Ugaritic ḥsp), that is, YHWH pours water on the land in the form of rain. This is also the sense of the verb favored by Cross (p. 154f).

The line of interpretation for v. 9ab, which I have adopted here, seems to find support from a Mesopotamian prayer to the storm-deity Adad (= Canaanite Haddu/Hadad); italics (marking points of parallel) are mine:

“[…] who irrigates the [hea]t, pours out [fertili]ty,
because of his voice people are deathly still,
meadowlands are broken up, steppes come into labor […]”
(Müller, Origins, p. 212; cf. D. Schwemer, Die Wettergottgestalten Mesopotamiens [2001], pp. 671-4)

The final line (v. 9c) marks the climax of the hymn. Just as v. 3 alludes to YHWH’s place of rule in (or above) the heavens, so here at the close of the hymn there is an explicit reference to His heavenly “palace” (lk*yh@) where He reigns (as King) over the cosmos. The noun lk*yh@ can also be translated “temple”, and, indeed, YHWH (like other deities worshiped in the Ancient Near East) effectively resided in a palace-temple—in which the throne room was also a sanctuary (“holy place”). In the full context of the Psalm (see v. 11, below), particularly as it came to be utilized in Israelite communal worship (especially in Jerusalem), this “palace” would also be understood in reference to the Zion Temple sanctuary.

The use of the noun dobK* (“weight”) echoes the occurrences in the framing introduction to the Psalm (vv. 1-2, discussed in Part 1). In the context of a theophany, it refers to the manifest splendor/glory of God. The verb rm^a* here should probably be understood in its fundamental meaning of “show” rather than the common conventional meaning “say”; cf. Dahood, p. 179f. However, if the meaning “say/speak” is intended, then oLK% (“all of it”) would have to be understood as “every one”, so that the line reads, “and in His palace every one is saying ‘Glory!'”. However, it would seem that oLK% more properly refers to the “weight” (i.e., glory) that is manifest as YHWH exercises rule (over the cosmos) from His palace: i.e., “all of it (is) showing forth, (His) weight”; for poetic concision, this is rendered as “all of His weight (is) showing forth”. Through His control over the waters, as manifested in the thunderstorm, YHWH demonstrates His power and majesty.

Cross (p. 154) suggests that oLK% should be omitted on metrical grounds. Indeed, its omission would yield a cleaner 3-beat line; v. 9a could also be parsed as a 3-beat line, producing a slightly irregular 3+2+3 tricolon. Metrically, this is comparable to verse 3, which could also scan as 3+2+3 (rather than 3+3+3). 

It is unfortunate that nothing of the hymn has been preserved in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and thus the scrolls can provide no help regarding some of the text-critical issues addressed above. Ps 29 survives in just one manuscript (from Nahal Ḥever,  5/6ḤevPs), preserving most of vv. 1-2 (but nothing of the hymn); the text of these verses supports the MT.

Conclusion: Verses 10-11

Verse 10

“YHWH sits (enthroned) over the floodwaters!
Indeed, YHWH (is) King into (the) distant (future)!”

Verses 10-11 are part of the poetic framework (along with vv. 1-2) that surrounds the hymn of vv. 3-9. YHWH is similarly portrayed in majesty and splendor upon His throne (where He rules as King). At the same time, there is a clear echo of the opening of the hymn (v. 3), with the image of YHWH seated “over/upon” (lu^) the waters. Indeed, line 1 here represents a summary of the scene in v. 3. Instead of the “[many] waters”, the word here is lWBm^, denoting a “flood” of water; it is used for the Flood of Noah, but in this instance it serves as another descriptive term for the great primeval waters that surround the cosmos. In Near Eastern thought, the regular flooding that occurs—often catastrophic in effect, but also necessary to make the land fertile—represents a temporary return to the primeval condition, when the cosmos was comprised of a dark mass of water (Gen 1:2). By ‘subduing’ this water, the Creator deity brings order and structure to the universe. This work of creation marks God as Sovereign over the universe. YHWH, as King of the universe, has control over these waters, from whence come the thunderstorm and the life-giving rains in their season.
See Loretz, pp. 171-8, 202-6. Cf. also the lengthy discussion on lWBm^ in v. 10 by Kloos, pp. 62-90, who argues that it refers here, not to a defeated hostile power, but simply to the heavenly reservoir of water from which YHWH sends down the rain. In my view, this obscures the cosmological significance of the ancient Near Eastern Conflict-with-the-Sea mythic pattern. It is YHWH’s ‘defeat’ of the primeval waters, subduing them, that establishes (or demonstrates and confirms) His control over them; having subdued them, He can direct them to move and gather about at His command. In ancient Israelite cosmology, there are indeed heavenly ‘reservoirs’ in which portions of the waters have been stored away (for release as rain); but YHWH’s control over the waters in this manner is connected to the cosmological-mythic tradition of His ‘defeat’ of the primeval Sea.

The prefixed preposition l= (on the noun lWBm^) should be understood here as more or less equivalent with the preposition lu^ (“upon, over”); cf. Cross, p. 155; Craigie, p. 243. Dahood (p. 180), prefers to understand it in the sense of “from”, viz., from the time at the beginning when the primeval waters existed as a great mass (i.e., “flood”). Pardee (p. 171f) takes the preposition in its ordinary directional sense of “to(ward)”, indicating YHWH’s relationship (as King) toward the waters, viz., exercising rule over them. 

The qatal/perfect form of the verb could be translated in the past/perfect tense (i.e., “has sat”); so also the wayyiqtol/imperfect form in the second line. If so, then the expression <l*oul= needs to be translated “from (the) distant (past)”. As part of the ancient Hebrew time-vocabulary, <l*ou can signify either the distant past or the distant future, with the temporal expression <l*oul= thus meaning “from (the) distant (past)” or “into (the) distant (future)” (in conventional translation, “from eternity” or “unto/for eternity”).

There is a parallel to v. 10 in the Ugaritic text KTU 1.101, lines 1-3a (cf. Day, p. 59; Loretz, ZAW 99 [1987], pp. 415-21): “Baal sits enthroned…like the flood, in the midst of his mountain”. The parallels between Baal Haddu and YHWH in Psalm 29 will be discussed further in the concluding Part 4 of this study.

Verse 11

“YHWH will give strength to His people!
YHWH will bless His people with fullness!”

The concluding verse 11 corresponds with the opening verse 1 through the common noun zu) (“strength”); cf. Müller, pp. 104-6. The holy ones of heaven (“sons of God”) are called on to give YHWH “strength” (by showing Him honor and submission); by contrast, it is YHWH who, as King, will give “strength” to the holy ones on earth (i.e., His people, esp. the righteous/devout ones). Craigie (p. 243) is surely correct in the view that zu) here connotes the idea of protection, viz., the Divine protection that YHWH, in His strength, provides. Dahood (p. 180) understands it in terms of “victory”.

Divine strength and protection are part of the blessing that YHWH gives to His people—viz., the covenant blessings, promised to His people insofar as they remain faithful/loyal to Him. The noun <olv* captures this substance of this blessing; it properly means “completeness (or completion), fullness”, but with frequent connotations of “well-being, peace, prosperity”, etc.

Like many Psalms, the closing lines here apply the message of the hymn to the people of Israel collectively and assume a definite worship setting. The power of YHWH manifest in the storm, and which subdued the waters at the beginning of creation, will likewise act on behalf of His people. This may allude to the ancient concept of El-Yahweh as the fashioner of the heavenly “armies” —the forces of nature, of the sun and moon, sky and storm, etc.—which fight against the enemies of God at His command. For more on this idea, cf. the previous study on the Song of the Sea (Exodus 15:1-12ff).

In the concluding Part 4 of this study, we will revisit the question of Canaanite influence on the Psalm and will explore its possible compositional history.

• • References above marked “Dahood” are to Mitchell Dahood, S.J., Psalms I: 1-50, Anchor Bible [AB] vol. 16 (1965).
  • Those marked “Craigie” are to Peter C. Craigie (and Marvin E. Tate), Psalms 1-50, Word Biblical Commentary [WBC], vol. 19, Second Edition (2004). Cf. also the articles “Psalm XXIX in the Hebrew Poetic Tradition”, Vetus Testamentum [VT] 22 (1972), pp. 143-51; and “Parallel Word Pairs in Ugaritic Poetry: a Critical Evaluation of Their Relevance for Psalm 29”, Ugarit-Forschungen [UF] 11 (1979), pp. 135-40.
  • Those marked “Kraus” are to Hans-Joachim Kraus, Psalms 1-59, Continental Commentary series (Fortress Press: 1993). Translated by Hilton C. Oswald from Psalmen, 1. Teilband, Psalmen 1-59 (5th edition), Biblischer Kommentar series (Neukirchener Verlag: 1978). 
  • Those marked “Loretz” are to Oswald Loretz, Ugarit-Texte und Thronbesteignungspsalmen: Die Metamorphose des Regenspenders Baal-Jahwe, Ugaritisch-Biblische Literatur [UBL] 7 (1988). Psalm 29 is discussed in pp. 78-248, which represents a newer version of an earlier work, Psalm 29: Kanaanäische El- und Baaltraditionen in jüdischer Sicht, UBL 2 (1984). Cf. also the article on Ps 29:10, “KTU 1.101:1-3a und 1.2 IV 10 als Parallelen zu Ps 29,10”, Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft [ZAW] 99 (1987), pp. 415-21.
  • Those marked “Avishur” are to Yitzhak Avishur, Studies in Hebrew and Ugaritic Psalms (Magnes Press: 1994). Psalm 29 is discussed in pp. 39-110.
  • Those marked “Kloos” are to Carola Kloos, Yhwh’s Combat with the Sea: A Canaanite Tradition in the Religion of Ancient Israel (G.A. van Oorschot / Brill: 1986). Psalm 29 is discussed in pp. 15-24.
  • Those marked “Cross” are to Frank Moore Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel (Harvard University Press: 1973). Psalm 29 is discussed on pp. 151-7.
  • Those marked “Fensham” are to F. C. Fensham, “Psalm 29 and Ugarit”, Ou-Testamentiese Werkgemeenskap in Suid-Afrika 6 (1963), pp. 84-99.
  • Those marked “Freedman” are to David Noel Freedman (and C. Franke Hyland), “Psalm 29: A Structural Analysis”, Harvard Theological Review [HTR] 66 (1973), pp. 237-56.
  • Those marked “Mittmann” are to Siegfried Mittmann, “Komposition und Redaktion von Psalm XXIX”, Vetus Testamentum [VT] 28 (1978), pp. 172-94.
  • Those marked “Pardee” are to Dennis Pardee, “On Psalm 29: Structure and Meaning”, in The Book of Psalms: Composition and Reception, eds. Peter W. Flint & Patrick D. Miller, Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 99 (Brill: 2005), pp. 153-83.
  • Those marked “Müller” are to Reinhard Müller, Jahwe als Wettergott: Studien zur althebräischen Kultlyrik anhand ausgewählter Psalmen, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft [BZAW] 387 (De Gruyter: 2008). Psalm 29 is discussed on pp. 103-32. Those marked “Müller, Origins” are to idem, “The Origins of YHWH in Light of the Earliest Psalms”, in The Origins of Yahwism, eds. Jürgen van Oorschot & Markus Witte, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft [BZAW] 484 (De Gruyter: 2019), pp. 207-38.
  • Those marked “Day” are to John Day, God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea: Echoes of a Canaanite Myth in the Old Testament (Cambridge University Press: 1985 [reprinted by Wipf and Stock Publishers]).