Category: Sunday Studies on the Psalms

Exegetical studies on the Psalms, to be posted on most Sunday afternoons. Each study will focus on a single Psalms, presented in canonical order; discussions on several of the larger Psalms will be broken up over separate studies.

The ‘Reed Sea’ and the Exodus Sea Tradition

[Ws <y` and the Exodus Sea Tradition

This note is supplemental to the recent multi-part study on the Song of the Sea (Exodus 15:1-21).

The meaning of [Ws <y` (Y¹m Sû¸)

In the Exodus 14 narrative (vv. 2, 9, 16, 21, 23), no specific geographical designation is given for the sea where the great Exodus event (and miracle) occurred; rather the reference is simply to “the sea [<Y`h^]” (cf. also the Song, vv. 1, 4; and Num 33:8). Only in verse 4 of the Song, and in v. 22 (cf. earlier in 13:18 and also 10:19), is the longer expression [Ws <y` used, as it is also in later tradition when the Exodus Sea-event is referenced (cf. Deut 11:4; Joshua 2:10; 4:23; 24:6; Psalm 106:7, 9, 22; 136:13, 15; Neh 9:9). Most scholars now assume that [Ws (sûp) is related to Egyptian ṯwf(y), denoting reeds or other plants that grow in water (in a marshy locale). This seems almost certain given the Egyptian setting of the narrative and the used of [Ws earlier in 2:3 and 5 (cf. also Isa 19:6).

See esp. the article by William A. Ward, “The Semitic Biconsonantal Root SP and the Common Origin of Egyptian ČWF and Hebrew SÛP”, Vetus Testamentum [VT] 24 (1974), pp. 39-49. On the possible connection of the Egyptian geographic designation pʒ ṯwfy (“the Reed [region]”, “the [region of] Reeds”) with Hebrew [Ws <y`, see the extensive discussion by Hoffmeier, Ancient Israel in Sinai, pp. 81-108. He locates pʒ ṯwfy north of the region of Lake Timsah and the Bitter lakes (called km wr, the “Great Black”)—namely, the swampy region between Lake Manzelah in the Delta and the el-Ballaḥ lake cluster (see the Map below). 

Thus, the construct expression (as a name) would mean “Sea of Reeds” or “Reed Sea”. The customary translation “Red Sea” comes from the LXX e)ruqra/ qa/lassa, followed by the Vulgate mari rubro, where it refers to the two great gulfs on either side of the Arabian peninsula (viz., the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf), along with the wider Indian Ocean. When speaking of the “Red Sea” in an ancient Israelite context, the reference is primarily to the narrow gulfs (of Suez and Aqaba) on either side of the Sinai peninsula. In 1 Kings 9:26 and Jer 49:21, [Ws <y` is used for the gulf of Aqaba, but otherwise the point of reference is to the gulf of Suez (along with the lakes to the north of it, cf. below) which forms an eastern boundary to the Egyptian territory.

The noun [Ws, denoting reeds or other marsh-plants, would not seem to apply particularly to the Red Sea (and the gulfs of Suez/Aqaba), though Jon 2:6[5] apparently shows that the term can be used for sea-growing vegetation generally. Thus, most commentators are inclined to identify the “sea” in Exodus 14-15 with one of the eastern Egyptian lakes that are situated to the north of the gulf of Suez (see below). In addition, it has also been suggested that [ws here does not mean [Ws (“reed, marsh-plant”), but, rather, should be derived from the root [ws (“be at an end, come to an end”), like the noun [os (“end”, cf. 2 Chron 20:16; Qoh 3:11, etc.). According to this view, [Ws <y` would mean “sea at the end” or “end of the sea”, which would be a suitable designation for the gulfs of Suez and Aqaba—in relation to the Red Sea, but also as a termination point, viz., for Egyptian or Canaanite territory; in this regard, one might note the geographic designation [Ws in Deut 1:1.
Cf. the article by Bernard F. Batto, “The Reed Sea: Requiescat in Pace”, Journal of Biblical Literature [JBL] 102 (1983), pp. 27-35, following earlier proposals by N. H. Snaith (in Vetus Testamentum [VT] 15 [1965], pp. 395-8) and J. A. Montgomery, “Hebraica (2) yam sûp (‘The Red Sea’) = Ultimum Mare?”, JAOS 58 (1938), pp. 131-32. He argues specifically that [Ws in Jon 2:6[5] does not mean “seaweed” or a water-growing plant but, rather, alludes to the “end” coming upon Jonah (par. with <h)T=, “deep” in the prior line). 

Given the use of [Ws in Exod 2:3, 5, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that, contextually, [Ws likewise means “reed(s)” when it occurs later in the narrative (10:19; 13:18; 15:4). At the very least, there is almost certainly some intentional wordplay and intertextual referencing, between the beginning of the Exodus narrative (chap. 2 / birth of Moses) and its climax (chaps. 14-15 / the Sea episode). The Nile is in the heart of Egyptian territory, while the “Sea of Reeds” (or, possibly, “Sea at the end”) marks the eastern boundary of that territory. Moses enters among the reeds of the Nile and is saved (from the Egyptians); similarly, the Israelite people are saved from the Egyptians at the “Sea of Reeds”, passing through the Sea as they depart from Egyptian territory.

The location/identification of [Ws <y`

An identification of the “Sea of Reeds” with the gulf of Suez (i.e., Red Sea) has been problematic, on several counts. Most modern commentators who seek to establish an authentic geographic location for the Sea episode favor one of the lakes to the north; on this, see the fine and concise survey by Hoffmeier, pp. 207-12 (and, updated, Ancient Israel in Sinai, pp. 85-108). The particular lake that is chosen depends, to a large extent, upon how one traces the Israelites’ journey to the Sea (13:18ff), with regard to the sites mentioned in 13:20 and 14:2 (cf. the thorough discussions by Hoffmeier, pp. 176-98, and Davies, pp. 240-59). For those who favor a route in the north, the great Delta lake (Manzeleh), or Bardawil/Sirbonis to the east, has been identified as the “Sea of Reeds”. However, a majority of commentators prefer the eastern lakes of the el-Ballaḥ cluster, Timsah, or the ‘Bitter Lakes’. It is quite possible that some or all of these bodies of water were connected, with each other and with the gulf of Suez. Indeed, long before the creation of the modern Suez canal (connecting the Red Sea with the Mediterranean), the ancient Egyptians had created a similar canal on the eastern border, extending from lake Timsah (and the wadi Tumilat) northward to the Mediterranean; it has even been suggested that the place name Pi-hahirot (14:2) refers to this canal (cf. Hoffmeier, Ancient Egypt in Sinai, pp. 105-7). Moreover, there is evidence that in ancient times the gulf Suez was larger and extended further north, so that it likely was connected (at least on a seasonal basis) with the Bitter Lakes. Cf. the discussion by Hoffmeier, pp. 164-75, pp. 207-10. All of this means that, in terms of the eastern boundary of Egypt, for the ancient Israelites, the Bitter Lakes, along with (possibly) Timsah and the el-Ballaḥ lakes further north, were all seen as part of the same [Ws <y`.

Hoffmeier, Figure 2: Map of the Delta and North Sinai

The Historicity and Symbolism of the [Ws <y`

There are basically two differing approaches taken by modern critical scholars with regard to Exodus Sea-tradition and the [Ws <y`. One is to treat the Exodus narratives as essentially providing accurate information about real historical events (with allowance made for certain legendary details and coloring). Hoffmeier is a prime example of this approach, following an earlier generation of scholars (such as W. F. Albright and Cross/Freedman). The current generation, for the most part, is inclined seriously to doubt the historical value of the Exodus narratives and traditions, instead adopting a minimalistic view as to the historical events/traditions that underlie the narratives (and the Song). The following quote by William Dever (cited by Hendel, p. 65) gives a blunt and decisive statement expressing this view:

“Not only is there no archaeological evidence for an exodus, there is no need to posit such an event. We can account for Israelite origins, historically and archaeologically, without presuming any Egyptian background. As a Syro-Palestinian archaeologist, I regard the historicity of the Exodus as a dead issue.”

Brenner, whose monograph on the Song I have referenced on a number of occasions, is also representative of this approach; he dates the Song quite late (post-exilic period, mid-5th century B.C.) and is scarcely concerned to address the question of its historicity at all. Ronald Hendel, in his article “The Exodus as Cultural Memory and the Song of the Sea”, in Israel’s Exodus in Transdisciplinary Perspective, pp. 65-77 (cf. also idem, “The Exodus in Biblical Memory”, Journal of Biblical Literature [JBL] 120 [2001], pp. 601-22), summarizes the historical-critical position and suggests that the Exodus narratives (and the Song) reflect a range of collective cultural memories (over many generations) rather than concrete historical events.
Hendel’s approach is addressed by four different scholars (including Hoffmeier), each of whom makes considerably more allowance for the historicity of the narratives, in Five Views on the Exodus: Historicity, Chronology, and Theological Implications, Counterpoints Series (Zondervan Academic: 2021), pp. 235-82. 

The same difference in viewpoint applies when considering specifically the Egyptian background (and historical setting) for the Exodus traditions; on which, cf. the concise survey Exodus: The Egyptian Evidence, eds. Ernest S. Frerichs & Leonard H. Lesko (Eisenbrauns: 1997). Even veteran Egyptologists can have very different opinions regarding the historical value and historicity of the Exodus narratives. Kenneth A. Kitchen, particularly in his book On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Eerdmans: 2003), pp. 241-312, takes a positive and optimistic view, whereas Donald B. Redford, for example, in his popular Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times (Princeton: 1992), follows the minimalist approach (see esp. pp. 408-22ff). For further study on the Egyptological (and archeological/scientific) issues, a fine selection of essays has been assembled in Israel’s Exodus in Transdisciplinary Perspective; I would recommend especially the essays by Manfred Bietak (pp. 17-38), Hoffmeier (pp. 197-208), and Brad C. Sparks (pp. 259-81).

This divergence of modern views concerning the Exodus traditions is particularly relevant with regard to the Sea-episode (and the [Ws <y`), since there are clearly mythological aspects to the episode—involving the Sea and YHWH’s control over it (discussed at various points in the notes on the Song). The question is: how do these aspects relate to the historical context of the episode? Again, there are two basic interpretative approaches, positing: (1) a fundamentally mythological episode has been put into an historical setting, or (2) mythic traditions and imagery have been applied to the narration of historical events. The latter seems much more likely, given what is known of ancient Near Eastern thought-patterns and how similar cosmological-mythic symbolism is utilized elsewhere in the Scriptures (e.g., Isa 27:1; 51:9-10, etc.); on which, see my article “Conflict with the Sea in Ancient Near Eastern Myth”. It is noteworthy how often this symbolism is applied specifically in relation to Egypt (in an historical context), cf. Isa 27:1ff; Ezek 29:3ff; 32:2ff. The comment by Kitchen (p. 262, see above) is apt:

the ancient Near East did not historicize myth (i.e., read it as an imaginary “history”). In fact, exactly the reverse is true — there was, rather, a trend to “mythologize” history, to celebrate actual historical events and people in mythological terms.

The most extensive study on the cosmological-mythic aspects of the Song (and the Sea-motif) is that of Kloos, pp. 139-57ff. Cf. also Bernard F. Batto, “Mythic Dimensions of the Exodus Tradition” (in Israel’s Exodus in Transdisciplinary Perspective, pp. 187-5), who considers the Exodus Sea-tradition principally as an adaptation of the Combat-with-the-Sea myth; in this regard, it should be noted that he understands [Ws <y` to mean “Sea at the end” (rather than “Sea of Reeds”, cf. above), that is, essentially at the end (or boundary) of the ordered creation. Hendel (p. 76), while maintaining the meaning “Sea of Reeds”, similarly explains this “Sea”, in the Egyptian context of the Exodus-event, as a boundary between order and chaos—viz., between the civilized land of Egypt (order) and the outside world (chaos). For the ancient Israelites, this symbolism becomes effectively reversed, as the “chaos” of the Sea-crossing and the Wilderness journeys leads to their salvation and settlement in the Promised Land as a new people.

Source Criticism and the Composition of the Exodus Narratives

A final comment should be made regarding the designation [Ws <y` (for the “Sea”) in relation to the composition of the Exodus narratives. According to the old ‘Documentary Hypothesis’, the Exodus narratives (including chaps. 14-15) are comprised of independent “J” and “E” strata (both dating from the early Kingdom-period) that have been combined together, along with a later “P” source (and redaction) from the exilic (and/or post-exilic) period. There have been numerous variations on this theory, which has come under increasing criticism in recent decades, to the point that the entire source-critical understanding of the Exodus (and other Pentateuchal) narratives is very much in flux. The inclusion of the Song, depending on how it is dated, has been variously attributed to the “J”, “E”, “JE”, and “P”-redactional levels. Much the same can be said regarding the identification of the “Sea” as the “Sea of Reeds” ([Ws <y`). As noted above, this specific identification does not occur in the chapter 14 narrative, but only in the Song (v. 4), and again in v. 22, though the designation does occur elsewhere in the narratives (10:19; 13:18). Brenner (pp. 88-91) offers the interesting theory that the “P” editor makes the identification at 15:22, drawing upon the itinerary of Num 33:6-10 (see v. 10), even though the reference at Num 33:10 does not refer to the Sea-crossing but to a different point of the journey. However, the identification in the Song (v. 4) comes, in his view, from a separate line of (Deuteronomistic) tradition—cf. Deut 11:4; Jos 2:10; 4:23; 24:6—and its later (post-exilic) redactors (as attested by Neh 9:9, and the occurrences in Pss 106 and 136). The identification in v. 4 may well come from a separate line of tradition (viz., the composition of the Song itself), but it hardly needs to be given such a late (i.e., post-exilic period) date.

    • References marked Israel’s Exodus in Transdisciplinary Perspective stand for the volume Israel’s Exodus in Transdisciplinary Perspective: Text, Archaeology, Culture, and Geoscience, eds. Thomas E. Levy, Thomas Schneider, William H. C. Propp, Quantitative Methods in Humanities and Social Sciences (Springer International Publishing: 2015). 
    • Those marked “Hoffmeier” are to James K. Hoffmeier, Israel in Egypt: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition (Oxford University Press: 1997). Those marked “Hoffmeier, Ancient Israel in Sinai” are to idem, Ancient Israel in Sinai: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Wilderness Tradition (Oxford University Press: 2005). Cf. also the same author’s contribution in Five Views on the Exodus: Historicity, Chronology, and Theological Implications, Counterpoints Series (Zondervan Academic: 2021), “2. The Thirteenth-Century (Late-Date) Exodus View”, pp. 81-134, and the essays “Which Way Out of Egypt? Physical Geography Related to the Exodus Itinerary” and “Egyptologists and the Israelite Exodus from Egypt” in Israel’s Exodus in Transdisciplinary Perspective (cf. above), pp. 101-8, 197-208.
    • Those marked “Brenner” are to Martin L. Brenner, The Song of the Sea: Exodus 15:1-21, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft [BZAW] 195 (De Gruyter: 1991).
    • Those marked “Davies” are to G. I. Davies, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Exodus 1-18, 2 vols., International Critical Commentary [ICC] (T&T Clark: 2020).
    • Those marked “Hendel” are to Ronald Hendel, “The Exodus as Cultural Memory and the Song of the Sea”, in Israel’s Exodus in Transdisciplinary Perspective (cf. above), pp. 65-77. See also, idem, “The Exodus in Biblical Memory”, Journal of Biblical Literature [JBL] 120 (2001), pp. 601-22, and the same author’s contribution in Five Views on the Exodus: Historicity, Chronology, and Theological Implications, Counterpoints Series (Zondervan Academic: 2021), “5. The Exodus as Cultural Memory View”, pp. 235-82.
    • Thos marked “Kloos” are to Carola Kloos, Yhwh’s Combat with the Sea (G.A. van Oorschot: 1986); see especially pp. 127–214 (on the Song).

Sunday Psalm Studies: Exodus 15:1-21 (Part 6)

The Song of the Sea: Exodus 15:1-21, continued

The ‘Song of Miriam’ (vv. 19-21)

Verse 21, which repeats almost verbatim the lines of the opening v. 1, is often referred to as the ‘Song of Miriam’, even as vv. 1ff is sometimes called the ‘Song of Moses’. Indeed, the narrative introduction in v. 20, focusing on the role of Miriam, matches the introduction in v. 1a (and the role of Moses). These parallel notices suggest that a poetic-liturgical structure—viz., the Song of praise sung by the men answered by a chorus of women—is being (or has been) adapted to the historical-narrative scenario (Moses leads the men, and Miriam the women).

Problematic to this structure is the comment in verse 19. This verse has been characterized as a late gloss, inserted after the Song was included as part of the narrative. However, it makes little sense in its current position after the text of the full Song. By contrast, it becomes more intelligible following the opening lines (v. 1), which are then repeated (by the women) in v. 21. Note how vv. 1 + 19-21 read in sequence:

1Then Moše sang, and (with him the) sons of Yisrael, this song to YHWH…

(Come,) I will sing to YHWH,
for rising, He has risen high!
(The) horse and its ride
He has hurled in(to) the Sea!….

19For (the) horse(s) of Pharaoh, with his ride(s) and with his horse-teams, came in(to) the sea, and YHWH made (the) waters of the sea turn back upon them, while (the) sons of Yisrael walked on the dry land in (the) midst of the sea.

20And (then) Miryam the Nabî’, sister of Aharon, took the timbrel in her hand and went out, (with) all (the) women following (her) with timbrels and with twirling (dance)s, 21and Miryam sang in response to them [i.e., to the men]:

(Yes,) sing (now) to YHWH,
for rising, He has risen high!
(The) horse and its ride
He has hurled in(to) the Sea!”

It seems rather more plausible for the explanatory comment in v. 19 (cf. 14:27-29) to have been included as part of a shorter narrative text that did not present the entire Song. Moreover, the scenario of the women singing in response to what the men sang becomes much clearer if only the opening of the Song (and not the entire Song) is present in the text. And, indeed, throughout the Pentateuch (in Genesis-Exodus and Numbers), the poems and songs quoted within the narrative are usually extremely short (e.g., Num 21:17), in contrast to the rather lengthy text of the full Song.

Of course, at some point, the complete Song, as we have it, was included in the narrative. The exact relationship of the ‘Song of Miriam’ (v. 21) to the full Song has been a much-debated question among commentators. Before addressing the even more contentious question as to the time/period in which the Song was composed, let us survey four options regarding the relationship of v. 21 to the Song (vv. 1b-18):

    • The ‘Song of Miriam’ (v. 21) represents the closing refrain of the Song
    • It represents an antiphonal response for each stanza of the Song
    • It stands as a shorthand, abbreviated form of the entire Song
    • It represents the original form of the Song, upon which the longer poem was based—viz., as an elaborate expository development of the simple earlier song

The first two options are quite similar, positing that v. 21, repeating v. 1, functions as a response/refrain for the main poem. The second option is much less likely, at least for the Song as it has come down to us. Indeed, verse 21, as a repeated response, would be better suited to a simpler strophic poem (e.g., Ps 136); as we have seen, the Song rather possesses a complex literary-poetic structure. However, a repetition of the opening (v. 1) as a closing refrain would be quite feasible, with parallels in a number of other Psalms (e.g., Ps 118). In this regard, the narrative framework of vv. 1-21 (excluding v. 19) would match the poetic-liturgical structure: (i) the Song, sung by Moses and the men, is followed by (ii) a repetition of the opening lines, sung by Miriam and the women (as a refrain).

However, we must give serious consideration to the third and fourth options, particularly in light of the analysis given above—to the effect that the narrative structure of vv. 1-21 is much clearer without the full text of the Song being present. This raises the possibility that either (i) v. 1/21 represents a shorthand or abbreviated version of the Song [option 3], or (ii) it represents the original version of the Song [option 4]. For commentators such as Cross and Freedman, who maintain an early (pre-monarchic, 12th-11th century) date for the Song, option i/3 is much to be preferred. On the other hand, if the Song is a later composition (of the monarchic, exilic, or post-exilic period), then the idea that the Song represents a development of earlier material (i.e., option ii/4) becomes much more feasible (even probable). Yet even many commentators who argue a late date for the Song view the entire work as an integral (and late) composition; cf. Brenner’s analysis on vv. 1, 21 (pp. 42-53, 80-4), with his conclusion that these lines date from the post-exilic period just like the rest of the Song.

The Date of Composition for the Song

As discussed in Part 1 of this study, there is a considerable range of opinion as to when the Song was composed. Four different periods may generally be considered:

    • Pre-monarchic (12th-11th century B.C.)
    • Early monarchy to the Assyrian conquests (10th-8th century)
    • Late monarchy (7th-6th century)
    • Exilic and Post-Exilic period (6th-5th century, or later)

At one extreme end are those scholars, led by Cross and Freedman, who maintain a pre-monarchic date for the Song; to these may be added traditional-conservative scholars who accept a Mosaic origin. At the other end is the view, held increasingly by modern critical scholars, that the Song is post-exilic. Brenner, whose analysis I have referred to a number of times in this study, offers the most thorough presentation of arguments in favor of a late (post-exilic) date for the Song. His arguments are based primarily on similarities of language and phrasing with passages in the Psalms, Prophets, and Deuteronomic texts. He is on relatively solid ground when noting parallels in Jeremiah and Deutero-Isaiah, for example, but much less so with regard to the Psalms and Deuteronomic texts. He devotes much attention to the parallels in the Asaph-Psalms (73-83) and characterizes the entire collection as post-exilic, a determination that is questionable at best (cf. the comments by Davies, p. 300). Similarly dubious is the way that many of the relevant Deuteronomic passages are attributed to post-exilic redaction.

Perhaps the best defense of an early (pre-monarchic) date for the Song is the linguistic-grammatical analysis presented by Russell. He highlights a number of key features which it is useful to list here (with page numbers indicated):

1. The use of yiqtol/imperfect verb forms for past-tense narration (pp. 107-9). As this is the most significant feature cited for the dating of Biblical Hebrew poetry as early (cf. Robertson, pp. 7-55), I have devoted a special supplemental note to the subject.

2. The 3rd person masculine plural pronominal suffix om– (pp. 112-16; cf. Robertson, pp. 65-9). The regular 3rd person plural pronominal suffix in Biblical Hebrew is <-, but occasionally the longer form om– occurs (primarily in poetry). In over half (66) of the Scriptural occurrences (116), the suffix is attached to a preposition; less common are the occurrences on nouns (27) and verbs (23). For these 50 occurrences, the two forms of the suffix (om– and <-) are found together, in mixed usage, in 13 Psalms (2, 5, 11, 17, 21, 35, 49, 59, 73, 80, 83, 89, 140) and the Song of Moses (Deut 32)—in the latter, om– occurs 4 times and <– 11 times. In just five poems, om- is used without any instance of <-, but in three of these (Pss 22, 45; Deut 33) there is just one occurrence of om-, and in a fourth (Ps 58) just two occurrences. The Song of the Sea is unusual in that there are considerably more (nine) occurrences of om– without a single instance of <– (vv. 5, 7, 9 [x2], 10, 12, 15, 17 [x2]).

Yigal Bloch subjects the entire issue to a penetrating analysis in his essay, “The Third-Person Masculine Plural Suffixed Pronoun –mw and Its Implications for the Dating of Biblical Hebrew Poetry”, Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew, eds. Cynthia Miller-Naudé and Ziony Zevit (Pennsylvania State University Press: 2012), pp. 147-70. He concludes the use of the wm– suffix (om-, also Wm-) continued at least until the mid-8th century B.C. and cannot be relied upon as an indicator of an earlier (i.e., pre-monarchic) date for Biblical Hebrew poems. 

3. The use of wz as a relative particle (pp. 110-11; cf. Robertson, pp. 62-5). The regular relative particle in Biblical Hebrew is rv#a&, but occasionally (in poetic texts) the particle wz (Wz, oz, cf. also hz#) is used. The particle Wz occurs twice in the Song of the Sea (vv. 13, 16) while standard particle rv#a& is not present. There are at least 8 occurrences of Wz in the Psalms, while there are a number of instances of relative hz# as well. This particle *z reflects the old Semitic d*/ḏ*, and its vestigial presence in Hebrew poetry is generally thought to represent an archaic (or archaizing) feature. It is certainly present in poems that are widely considered to be early (such as the Song of Deborah [cf. verse 5] and Psalm 68 [v. 9/8]), but also occurs in admittedly later poems (e.g., Isa 42:24; Hab 1:11), while the dating of most of the relevant Psalms is also disputed by scholars.

4. Preservation of a final y/w– of a verbal root in instances where it is normally lost (pp. 109-10; cf. Robertson, pp. 57-62). Many final h– verbal roots (e.g., hs*K*) are thought to reflect an original y– or w-, vestiges of which are preserved occasionally in suffixed verb forms (especially in poetry). One such instance occurs in the Song (v. 5), Wmy%s=k^y+ (rather than WmS%k^y+); cf. also Deut 32:37, and a number of occurrences in the Psalms (e.g., 39:8[7]; 83:4[3]). While it may be viewed as an archaic feature, one should note the occurrences in the book of Isaiah (including at least three in the Deutero-Isaian poems, 40:18, 25; 46:5). Similar archaizing (if such it is) can also be found in the book of Job (cf. 12:6; 19:2; 31:38).

5. Occurrences of the masculine singular object suffix Whn– on verbs (pp. 111-2; cf. Robertson, p. 65). It is thought that this rare form (in poetry) is archaic. Indeed, it occurs once in the Song (v. 2) and three times in Deut 32:10; but it also occurs twice in Jeremiah (6th century, 5:22; 22:4).

6. Use of the fuller form of the prepositions k, l, b (omK=, oml=, omB=, cf. Ugaritic km, lm, bm) (p. 116; cf. Robertson, p. 109f). Again, these may be deemed archaic forms that are preserved in poetry. They are found in later (i.e., 6th-5th century) poetry as well, but multiple occurrences in a single poem are rare and could be seen as an indication of an early date. There are two occurrences of omK= in the Song (vv. 5, 8), as many as any other poetic text with the exception of Psalm 58 (6 occurrences). There are also a considerable number of occurrences (11) in the Joban Dialogue, where it could be viewed as an intentional archaizing feature.

There are the more notable individual linguistic and syntactical features that have been posited as an indicator of an early date for the Biblical Hebrew poems. However, all of them also occur in later poetry (8th-5th century), and certainly no one of them can serve as a sufficient indicator; however, the occurrence of such a significant number in the same poem (as we find the Song) makes it more tenable for scholars to argue strongly in favor of an early date (early monarchy, or pre-monarchic). I tend to concur with commentators who, somewhat cautiously (and entirely on objective grounds), suggest a 9th-8th century date, with the definite possibility that the original form of the poem may be older still (i.e., 12th-10th century).

This leads to a final question that must be considered: to what extent has the Song undergone development and adaptation over time? The question is particularly appropriate (and significant) in light of two competing strands of evidence: (1) the number of distinct archaic linguistic and syntnactical features in the Song (discussed above), and (2) the verbal and thematic parallels with various Psalms and Prophetic poems, including those which date to the 7th-5th centuries B.C. (also discussed above, and throughout the notes). Is it possible that an early (pre-monarchic?) poem underwent development, so as to produce the Song much in the form that it has come down to us by the end of the Kingdom period (if not later)?

We have already discussed the theory that v. 1/21 represents the primitive song which was subsequently expanded into a much longer and complex literary-poetic work. A number of scholars have made various proposals as to a longer ‘original’ or core poem (see the summary discussion by Davies, pp. 292-3), e.g.:

    • Zenger (pp. 460-4ff): vv. 1, 5, 6–7, 11–12
    • Norin (pp. 96-8): vv. 1, 3, 6-7, 9-13, 15a, 16a, 17-18
    • Jeremias (pp. 98-9): vv. 1, 3, 9-13, 15a, 16-18
    • Spieckermann (pp. 105-7): vv. 1-13, 17-18
    • Albertz (pp. 231ff): vv. 6-18 (with amplifications in vv. 14, 15b)
    • Klein (pp. 516ff): vv. 1–3, 6-11a, 13, 17–18 and 21

According to my own structural analysis of the Song, which largely follows that of Freedman (pp. 195ff), the two main ‘inner’ stanzas (vv. 7-10, 12-16a) appear to have an expository character, whereby they expound, respectively, the two short ‘outer’ stanzas (vv. 3-5, 17). However, this does not necessarily mean that vv. 3-5 + 17 represent the core of an older poem that subsequently underwent development; the Song may have been composed with this complex poetic-rhetorical structure in mind. From an historical-traditional standpoint, the second half of the Song, if it indeed alludes to the settlement of the Land and the establishment of the Temple sanctuary in Jerusalem (as past events), would provide rather clear evidence for development and expansion of the Song (if the original form of the Song were pre-monarchic). And yet, all of these points are disputed by commentators, as discussed variously in the notes.

It should also be mentioned that, for commentators who posit literary and editorial-redactional ‘layers’ to the Song, their views tend to be oriented to the larger source-critical analysis that attends the Exodus narrative—viz., in terms of the ‘Documentary hypotheses’ and all their modern reflexes. I have avoided any discussion of these theories, but will address them, to some extent, and in a very general way, in a supplemental note on the “Reed Sea” ([Ws <y~) tradition.

    • References marked “Cross” above (and throughout these notes) are to Frank Moore Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History and Religion of Israel (Harvard University Press: 1973).
    • Those marked “Cross/Freedman” are to Frank Moore Cross and David Noel Freedman, “The Song of Miriam”, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 14 (1955), pp. 237-50. This is a revised version of a chapter from their earlier dissertation, published in idem, Studies in Ancient Yawhistic Poetry, Society of Biblical Literature [SBL] Dissertation Series (1975), pp. 31-45.
    • Those marked “Freedman” are to David Noel Freedman, Pottery, Poetry and Prophecy: Collected Essays on Hebrew Poetry (Eisenbrauns: 1980): (1) pp. 131-66, “Early Israelite History in the Light of Early Israelite Poetry” (originally published in Unity and Diversity, ed. H. Goedicke & J. J. M. Roberts [1975]); (2) pp. 179-86, “The Song of the Sea” (originally published in 1968); (3) pp. 187-228, “Strophe and Meter in Exodus 15” (originally published in A Light Unto My Path, ed. H. N. Bream, R. D. Heim, C. A. Moore [1974]).
    • Those marked “Brenner” are to Martin L. Brenner, The Song of the Sea: Exodus 15:1-21, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft [BZAW] 195 (De Gruyter: 1991).
    • Those marked “Russell” are to Brian D. Russell, The Song of the Sea: The Date of Composition and Influence of Exodus 15:1-21 (Dissertation, 2002), also published as a monograph (Studies in Biblical Literature 101 [Peter Lang, Inc.: 2007]).
    • Those marked “Robertson” are to David A. Robertson, Linguistic Evidence in Dating Early Hebrew Poetry, Society of Biblical Literature [SBL] Dissertation Series 3 (Scholars Press: 1972).
    • Those marked “Davies” are to G. I. Davies, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Exodus 1-18, 2 vols., International Critical Commentary [ICC] (T&T Clark: 2020).
    • Those marked “Albertz” are to Rainer Albertz, Exodus 1–18, Zürcher Bibelkommentare [ZBK] (Theologischer Verlag Zürich: 2017).
    • Those marked “Norin” are to Stig I. L. Norin, Er Spaltete Das Meer. Die Auszugsüberlieferung in Psalmen und Kult des alten Israel, Coniectanea Biblica Old Testament Series 9 (CWK Gleerup: 1977).
    • Those marked “Zenger” are to Eric Zenger, “Tradition und Interpretation in Exodus 15 1–21″, in Congress Volume: Vienna, 1980, Vetus Testamentum Supplements 32 (Brill: 1981), pp. 452–83.
    • Those marked “Jeremias” are to Jörg Jeremias, Das Königtum Gottes in den Psalmen. Israels Begegnung mit dem kanaanäischen Mythos in den Jahwe-König-Psalmen, Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testament [FRLANT] 141 (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: 1987).
    • Those marked “Spieckermann” are to H. Spieckermann, Heilsgegenwart: Eine Theologie der Psalmen, Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testament [FRLANT] 148 (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: 1989).
    • Those marked “Klein” are to A. Klein, “Hymn and History in Ex 15: Observations on the Relationship between Temple Theology and Exodus Narrative in the Song of the Sea”, Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft [ZAW] 124 (2012), pp. 516–27.

Past-tense Narration and the yiqtol-imperfect verb in Exodus 15

This note is supplementary to the current study on Exodus 15:1-21 (Song of the Sea). 

One of the chief arguments put forward in favor of an early date for the Song of the Sea is the use of yiqtol/imperfect verb forms for simple past-tense (preterite) narration (cf. the discussion in Part 6). For readers who are not all that familiar with the technical issues involved, a brief overview summary may be useful.

There are two main categories in the ancient Hebrew verbal system as regards tense/aspect: (1) qatal/perfect (suffix-conjugation), and (2) yiqtol/imperfect (prefix-conjugation). The terms qatal and yiqtol derive from a transliteration of the verbal root (lfq, qṭl) used as a kind of placeholder to represent the basic verbal (conjugation) patterns. The qatal pattern is suffix-conjugation—that is, the morphologically inflected forms (person, gender, number, etc.) are indicated by sufformatives (i.e., suffixes). The pattern is rooted in the baseline Qal or G (for “gr[o]und”) stem, where, e.g., the third person masculine singular form is lf^q* (qāṭal), the feminine singular hl*f=q* (qāṭlâ), and the masculine plural Wlf=q* (qāṭlû). The yiqtol pattern is referred to as prefix-conjugation in that its forms are marked by both sufformatives (suffixes) and preformatives (prefixes). In the Qal/G stem, the third person masculine singular form is lf)q=y] (yiqṭōl), the feminine singular lf)q=T! (tiqṭōl), and the masculine plural Wlf=q=y] (yiqṭelû). The vocalization and other aspects of the morphology differ slightly (within this overall pattern) for different kinds of verbs and verbal roots.

The qatal suffix-conjugation pattern is sometimes designated “perfect” —that is, expressing perfect/past tense and/or perfective aspect (i.e., completion/completeness of action, etc.). For past-tense narration in Hebrew, the qatal pattern is used, and the qatal (suffix-conjugation) forms are typically translated in the past-tense. The yiqtol prefix-conjugation pattern is often designated (somewhat imprecisely) as “imperfect”. It is used primarily to describe future actions or events, and thus tends to be translated in the future-tense; however, it can also be used for present- and past-tense actions/events, particularly when they are described as incomplete (and thus, “imperfect”), continuous, frequent/habitual, or when they have modal-volitive force (i.e., “he would do {such}”, “he wished to do {such}”, etc.). A number of lengthened yiqtol forms serve as pattern types for jussive and cohortative forms (expressing wish, permission, or [indirect] command).

A special category within the yiqtol pattern is the so-called waw-consecutive or wayyiqtol (lf)q=Y]w~) type (a w [waw] conjunction is attached, with doubling/lengthening of the initial prefix element), which is used for past-tense narration. Typically, a wayyiqtol form follows (and is governed by) an initial qatal form, usually describing a sequence of actions/events (i.e., “he did {such}…and [then] he did {such}…”). There is a comparable waw-consecutive weqatal type, in which a qatal form (with attached w [waw] conjunction) follows (and is governed by) a yiqtol form—for future-tense narration, and for certain kinds of present-tense (and even past-tense) narration, when the verbal aspect is imperfective or modal-volitive, etc. (see above).

The ancient/classical Hebrew verbal system, as outlined above, is quite consistent in its application, particularly with regard to narrative prose. Past-tense narration is expressed by the qatal + wayyiqtol syntax-pattern. This generally applies to poetry as well, except that, instead of a narrative-linear sequence, the qatal + wayyiqtol pattern is often parallelistic—viz., for example, a qatal form in the first line of a couplet followed by a wayyiqtol form in the second. However, there are rare occasions in Hebrew poetry when an ordinary yiqtol form seems to be used for past-tense narration outside of the qatal + wayyiqtol pattern. This preterite use of the yiqtol has been related to the ancient Canaanite yaqtul form, and (thus) also as an indicator of an early date (viz., pre-monarchic or early monarchic) for the poetry. See the discussion by Robertson (Linguistic Evidence in Dating Early Hebrew Poetry), pp. 7-55.

Not all scholars are so convinced of the existence of these yiqtol preterites nor that they can so readily be regarded as an indication of an early (i.e., premonarchic) date. Niccacci (pp. 247-68), for example, rather doubts that there exists such preterite usage of the yiqtol in Biblical Hebrew poetry, nor that the verbal system was ever applied differently in poetry than in prose. This skepticism would presumably relate even to the earliest poetry; in the cited article, he does not specifically discuss the Song of the Sea, but he does make passing mention (p. 261) to the Song of Moses (Deut 32) and expresses doubt as to the claim that Biblical poetry employs the yaqtul/yiqtol as a preterite (cf. in verses 8 and 10).
See the articles by A. F. Rainey, “The Ancient Hebrew Prefix Conjugation in the Light of the Amarna Canaanite”, Hebrew Studies 27 (1986), pp. 5-19; idem, “The yaqtul Preterite in Northwest Semitic”, in M. F. J. Baasten and W. T. van Peursen (eds.), Hamlet on a Hill: Semitic and Greek Studies Presented to Professor Τ Muraoka… (2003), pp. 395-407.

Bloch (pp. 34-70) is similarly skeptical, but is more willing to allow for the use of yiqtol (prefix-conjugation forms) “to signify past situations” in a number of relatively early poems (such as the Song of the Sea), which he would tend to date to the early (pre-exilic) monarchy (9th-8th centuries B.C.) rather than to the pre-monarchic period. He discusses the Song of the Sea on pp. 54-7, and isolates ten (or possibly eleven) instances in the Song where a short yiqtol verb form may be used to express “complete sitations in the past” outside of the qatal + wayyiqtol pattern:

    • Verse 5:
      vb hs^K* (“cover”)— “The deep places covered them”
    • Verse 6:
      vb Ju^r* (“smash, shatter”)— “Your right hand, YHWH, has smashed (the) hostile (one)”
    • Verse 7:
      vb sr^h* (“pull/tear down”)— “you tore down (those) standing against you”
      vb jl^v* (“send”)— “You sent forth your burning (anger)”
      vb lk^a* (“eat, consume”)— “it consumed them like the dry straw”
    • Verse 12:
      vb ul^B* (“swallow”)— “(the) earth swallowed them”
    • Verse 15:
      vb zj^a* (“take firm hold”)— “trembling grabbed hold of them”
    • Verse 16:
      vb lp^n` (“fall”)— “there fell upon them (sudden) dread and terror”
      vb <m^D* (“be silent”)— “they became silent like a stone”
    • Verse 17:
      vb aoB (“come”, Hiphil “bring”)— “You brought them”

To which might be added:

    • Verse 2: vb hy`h* (“be[come]”)— “and He has come to be salvation for me”

These yiqtol forms are mixed together with qatal forms, which are ordinarily used for past-tense narration (as discussed above). It is difficult to discern any clear difference in use or purpose between, for example, the yiqtol forms in vv. 5-7 and the qatal forms in vv. 8-10. Even more striking is the way that the yiqtol in v. 12 is immediately followed by a sequence of qatal forms in vv. 13-14, or how the yiqtol form in v. 15 occurs between two qatal forms, with little or no discernible difference between them. As discussed in the notes, the two yiqtol forms in v. 17 could be treated as future-tense verbs (certainly, many commentators and translators render them so), and even those in vv. 15-16 could conceivably have a future orientation. The forms of the verb rb^u* (“pass/cross over”) in v. 16 should probably not be counted as preterites since the context is clearly continuous/durative (i.e., “until your people cross over”).

Notarius (pp. 107-24), working from a discourse-analysis framework, seeks to distinguish between imperfective, modal-volitive, and possible preterite uses of the yiqtol forms in the Song. She makes the valid argument that some of these forms could be regarded as imperfect-circumstantial or historical-present tense verbs. For example, verse 5 could be translated as follows (note the yiqtol form in bold):

“(The) deep places covering them,
they went down in (the) depths like a stone!”

Note similarly verse 15:

“So (also) they were terrified,
(the) chieftains of Edôm;
(the) strong (one)s of Mô’ab,
trembling takes hold of them—
they melted (away) completely,
(all those) sitting (in) Kena’an!”

And, again, in verse 16:

“(Indeed) there falls upon them
(sudden) dread and terror;
at (the) greatness of your arm
they become silent like a stone!”

Possibly also in verse 12:

“You stretched out your right hand,
(and, see—the) earth swallows them!”

The YHWH-verses and similar hymnic portions are also suitable to translation in the historical present, describing regular/characteristic behavior by YHWH that happens to be fulfilled in particular historical circumstances (such as the Reed Sea event):

“Your right hand, O YHWH
(is) mighty in (its) strength!
Your right hand, O YHWH
smashes (the) hostile (one)!” (v. 6)

“My strength and my protection (is) YH(WH),
and He comes to be salvation for me!” (v. 2)

However, I do find myself in agreement with Bloch on at least the 10/11 occurrences (listed above), that these do, in fact, represent past-tense (preterite) uses of the yiqtol. The relative rarity of such occurrences in most Biblical Hebrew poetry, and the concentration of them in poems such as the Song of the Sea, the Song of Moses (Deut 32), and Psalm 18 (par 2 Sam 22), does suggest that they are more common in early poetry. Yet, the example Bloch gives of Isaiah 41:1-5 (pp. 61-4), should make one cautious about positing too early of a date based simply on the occurrence of yiqtol preterites. He isolates a series of six of these forms in vv. 2-3, and yet virtually all critical commentators (and even some traditional-conservative commentators) would date the poem to the 6th century. Therefore, on purely objective linguistic grounds, based on the mixture of qatal and yiqtol forms, such as we find in the Song of the Sea, it would be relatively safe to give a likely date for such a poem to the 8th (or 9th) century B.C., though it could conceivably be older. Other evidence and arguments must be taken into account in order to establish a firmer dating (see the discussion in Part 6, and the exegesis of the Song throughout Parts 1-5).

    • References above marked “Robertson” are to David A. Robertson, Linguistic Evidence in Dating Early Hebrew Poetry, Society of Biblical Literature [SBL] Dissertation Series 3 (1972).
    • Those marked “Niccacci” are to Alviero Niccacci, “The Biblical Hebrew Verbal System in Poetry”, in Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic Setting: Typological and Historical Perspectives, eds. Steven E. Fassberg and Avi Hurvitz (The Hebrew University Magnes Press / Eisenbrauns: 2006), pp. 247-68.
    • Those marked “Bloch” are to Yigal Bloch, “The Prefixed Perfective and the Dating of Early Hebrew Poetry—A Re-Evaluation”, Vetus Testamentum [VT] 59 (2009), pp. 54-70.
    • Those marked “Notarius” are to Tania Notarius, The Verb in Archaic Biblical Poetry: A Discursive, Typological, and Historical Investigation of the Tense System (Brill: 2013).

Sunday Psalm Studies: Exodus 15:1-21 (Part 5)

The Song of the Sea: Exodus 15:1-21, continued

FOurth Stanza (v. 17)

The fourth and final stanza of the Song is the second of the two ‘outer’ stanzas; it corresponds with the first ‘outer’ stanza (vv. 4-5, cf. Part 2).

Verse 17a

“(Then) you bring them and fasten them,
in (the) mountain of your possession—”

As we have seen, the first half of the Song deals with Israel’s exit (exodus) from Egypt and the event at the Reed Sea which made it possible; the focus in the second half is the people’s entry into the Promised Land (and their settlement in the Land). Formally, this first couplet relates to v. 4a, evincing a loose parallelism:

    • YHWH hurls the Egyptian forces into the sea
    • YHWH plants His people Israel in the mountain

The first action, against the hostile nation(s), involves the depths below the surface of the earth; the second action, on behalf of the people Israel, involves the heights (viz., a mountain) towering above the surface.

There are actually two verbs mentioned here in the first line of v. 17a, two sequential actions: YHWH (i) brings (vb aoB, Hiphil) the people, and then (ii) fastens them (vb uf^n`) in/on the mountain. The verb uf^n` literally means “fasten”, i.e. fix/root in the ground, though it customarily refers to planting—and is thus a general agricultural/horticultural term. This is important from the standpoint of the idea of Israel’s settlement in the land. Only a people settled (fixed/fastened) in a region can establish regular agricultural practice—planting and harvesting, etc. Such agriculture is also necessary for a fulfillment of the land—its fruitfulness and blessing—as a covenant promise from YHWH. This motif of Israel being “planted” (like a vine) in the choice land occurs in a number of other poetic passages—cf. Psalm 44:3 [2]; 80:9 [8], 15-16 [14-15]; Isa 5:1-7; Jer 2:21; 32:41. The motif itself is old (cf. 2 Sam 7:10, and the poetic idiom in Num 24:6), but, as Brenner (p. 140) notes, it becomes more common in later texts—see especially its use in the context of Israel’s return from exile (Jer 24:6; 32:41; Ezek 36:36).

The idea of YHWH bringing (vb aoB, Hiphil) His people into the Promised Land is fundamental to Israel’s religious identity (and their relationship to the Land)—Exod 23:20; Deut 4:38; 6:10; 7:1, etc. The reference here in the Song, in particular connection with the mountain (rh^) that belongs to YHWH (as His possession), finds a close parallel in Psalm 78:54. In all likelihood, this Psalm is dependent upon the earlier Song, though Brenner (e.g., p. 140) considers the Song and Psalm 78 [study] both to derive from the same time (post-exilic) and cultural milieu (cf. Neh 1:9). There can be no doubt that, insofar as this tradition was utilized in later texts (of the exilic and post-exilic period), the “mountain” to which Israel came, and to which they will come again (after the return from exile), refers to Jerusalem/Zion and the location of the Temple (e.g., Isa 27:13; 35:10; 51:11; 56:7-8; Jer 31:10; Ezek 40:2); cf. the discussion below.

The idea of the Israelite people as the special “possession” (hl*j&n~) of YHWH occurs with some frequency, particularly in Deuteronomy (4:20; 9:26; 32:9, etc.) and the Deuteronomic texts (1 Sam 10:1; 2 Sam 20:19; 21:3; 1 Kings 8:51, etc.); it also features in a number of Psalms and Prophetic poems (e.g., Ps 78:71; Isa 19:25; 47:6; Joel 2:17; Jer 12:7-9ff). It is less common to speak of the Land, or of Jerusalem/Zion, specifically as YHWH’s possession. Brenner (p. 141) notes the exilic/post-exilic occurrences in Jeremiah 2:7; 16:18; 50:11; Zech 2:16[12] and would similarly date Ps 79:1 to the post-exilic period. In the parallel of Ps 78:54, the holy mountain is referred to as something that YHWH “acquired” (vb hn`q*) to be His possession, though the noun hl*j&n~ itself is used of the Israelite people; cf. 74:2 and v. 16b of the Song (discussed in Part 4). In spite of the late texts that Brenner cites, the idiom with the use of the term hl*j&n` is ancient, as is clear from the Ugaritic (14th century B.C.) parallel, whereby the mountain on which Baal Haddu’s palace was built (and where he dwells) is called ǵr nḥlt, “(the) mountain of (his) possession” (e.g., Baal Epic, Tablet III [CAT/KTU 1.3] col. 3.30, col. 4.20). Indeed, in the same Canaanite text there is a conjunction, just as here in the Song, between the root vdq and the expression –tl*j&n~ rh^:

bqdš bǵr nḥlty
bn‘m bgb‘ tliyt
“in (the) holy mountain of my possession,
in (the) beautiful hill of my might”

The ancient Israelites followed Canaanite tradition in viewing YHWH as dwelling (enthroned) on a great cosmic mountain with its top high in (and above) the heavens. The “mountain of God” was a symbol rooted in ancient cosmological myth. In Canaanite religious tradition, the Creator ’Ēl, connected closely with the majestic expanse of the sky, was thought of as dwelling in (or on) a mountain, which could also be envisioned simultaneously as a great domed tent. Similarly residing on a heavenly/cosmic mountain was Baal-Haddu, whose control over the sky and storm has certain key similarities to the Israelite portrait of YHWH (to be discussed further in the next study, on Psalm 29). The same basic imagery was applied to El-Yahweh in ancient Israel. Any local mountain could be identified—symbolically, and in ritual terms—with God’s mountain dwelling. For example, the major local mountain associated with Baal-Haddu was Jebel Aqra‘ (Casius), while El was associated with mount Amanus (cf. Cross, pp. 37-38). Similarly, YHWH was identified with mount Sinai/Horeb in the early tradition, and, subsequently, this mythic-religious archetype was transferred to other local mountains and hills, including the hilltop site of Jerusalem/Zion where the Temple would be built. It makes no difference if the Temple mount was, in reality, only a modest hill; the application of the mythic archetype meant that it could be envisioned and described as a great mountain.

In this regard, there has been a good deal of interpretive debate over the specific identity of the “mountain” mentioned here in v. 17a—how it relates to the date/composition of the Song, the historical tradition being expressed, the tense of the verbs used, and so forth. For commentators who view the Song as early, perhaps of pre-monarchic (and even Mosaic) date, a reference here to Zion/Jerusalem and the Temple, would be anachronistic, particularly if the yiqtol/imperfect verbs are translated as preterite (i.e., past-tense). On the other hand, for commentators who view the Song as a product of the (late) monarchic, exilic, or post-exilic period, neither the identification with Zion nor the past-tense translation pose any problem. An identification with Zion does represent the most natural line of interpretation, in light of the numerous Scriptural parallels (in addition to the references cited above, cf. Ps 2:6; 24:3; Isa. 2:3; 30:29; 66:20; Mic. 4:2; Joel 2:1; 4[3]:17; Zech. 8:3; Dan 9:16).

The only other serious option is to follow Freedman (pp. 138-41) in identifying the mountain with Sinai/Horeb. Cross’ proposed (pp. 138-44) identification with Gilgal is most unlikely; more plausible would be the identification with Shiloh by Smith (pp. 225-6, cf. also Goldin, pp. 51-5). For a more thorough summary of the various theories and options, see the discussion by Davies, pp. 367-8; Propp, pp. 564-8. If the Song is indeed ancient/early (a question to be discussed further in the concluding Part 6), then, at the earliest level of composition, the reference would most likely have been to Sinai/Horeb and the tradition(s) of Exodus 19-24ff. The identification becomes more plausible if one sees, in the use of the verb uf^n` (“fasten”, cf. above), an allusion to an image of the people setting up camp, viz., at Sinai/Horeb (the preposition B= on rh^B= could conceivably mean “by, at”, i.e., “by/at the mountain”), 19:1-2ff; cf. Propp, p. 541.

In the 13th/12th century, at the earliest possible historical and poetic levels of the Song, Jerusalem itself may not have been in view, but the basic idea and imagery (of the mountain of God, etc) would have been easily transferable to a location in Canaan (or of the promised land as a whole). Indeed, within the early Exodus traditions, both through the portable Tent-shrine and the theophanous Cloud, YHWH continued to be present with His people throughout their migratory travels—a process that would continue (and find completion) with their settlement in Canaan. There is no bar against viewing these lines as prophetic of the eventual settlement of Jerusalem (and construction of the Temple), even if the original poem itself may not have been so specific.

Certainly, in terms of the wider Scriptural tradition, verse 17 must contain, at the very least, a foreshadowing reference to the establishment of Jerusalem/Zion as the holy ‘mountain’ on which YHWH’s Temple-sanctuary would be built. For this reason, even commentators and translators who render the prior yiqtol/imperfect verbs of the Song as preterites (past-tense), are inclined to switch here to a future tense (cf. Utzschneider/Oswald, et al.): i.e., “You will bring them and will fasten/plant them…”. In Biblical poetry, corresponding qatal/perfect and wayyiqtol (waw-consecutive) verbs, which would normal be rendered in the past/perfect tense, sometimes have precative and/or prophetic force—viz., describing something that one wishes or expects to happen in terms of something that has already occurred. That may be the sense of the yiqtol/imperfect forms here in v. 17. Such precative verses in other Psalms often occur in the concluding section(s), even as we find here. I have translated these verbs throughout the Song largely as past tense, without necessarily making any particular judgment on the absolute age (or historicity) of the Song.
In early Hebrew poetry, the so-called imperfect (yiqtol/yaqtul) forms often express the narrative past, as in the older Canaanite dialect-languages (such as Ugaritic), cf. Cross, p. 125. So they occur all through the Song, translated as past-tense. This linguistic feature has provided a relatively strong argument for commentators who see the Song as an early composition (to be discussed further in Part 6).

As a minor textual note, the Qumran manuscript 4QExodc, along with the Samaritan Pentateuch, read the 3rd person plural object suffixes in line 1 with the common <– orthography, rather than the unusual om– that we see here (at at a number of points in the Song). The om– has been regarded as an archaic feature often cited as an indication of the Song’s early date.

Note also the assonance and rhyme of the first line: teḇi’ēmô weṯiṭā‘ēmô.

Verse 17bc

“(the) firm place for your sitting,
(which) you made, O YHWH;
(the) holy place, O my Lord,
(that) your hands* made firm!”
* 4QExodc and the Samaritan Pentateuch apparently read the singular idy (“your hand”).

The last two couplets of the stanza are parallel and belong together. They correspond to vv. 4b-5 in the first stanza, narrating the drowning of the Egyptian forces (in the Reed Sea). Their drowning marks the climax of the episode at the Reed Sea (and the first half of the Song, cf. verse 10); similarly, the establishment by YHWH of His “holy place”, where He sits enthroned among His people, marks the climactic moment of the second half of the Song—Israel’s entrance and settlement in the Land.

The locative nouns /okm* (“firm/fixed place”) and vD*q=m! (“holy place”) are parallel and essentially synonymous; they both refer to the sanctuary where YHWH sits enthroned (as King). Properly speaking, this sanctuary and throne is located in (or above) the heavens, as is quite clear from 1 Kings 8:27ff, and numerous other passages. In particular, there are a number of throne-references in the Psalms, where the thematic-motivic characteristic of firmness (i.e., being firmly established), including specific use of the verbal root /WK (“be firm”), features—cf. 9:8[7]; 11:4; 45:7[6]; 47:9[8]; 89:3[2], 15[14], 30[29]ff; 93:2; 97:2; 103:19; 119:89. For this traditional terminology, applied to YHWH’s throne/dwelling in Zion, cf. 48:9[8]; 76:3[2]; 87:1; 122:3. For the specific use of the noun /okM*, in this context, see Psalm 33:14; 89:15[14]; 97:2; 1 Kings 8:13, 39, 43, 49 (and the parallels in Chronicles); Isa 18:14; it is applied directly to the Temple/Zion in Isa 4:5; Ezra 2:68; Dan 8:11. Brenner (p. 141) regards all of these Deuteronomic and Prophetic texts as late; he similarly considers all references where the noun vd*q=m! (“holy place”) is used of the Jerusalem Temple to be exilic and post-exilic (cf. his listing of the 52 Scriptural occurrences, note especially Ps 43:3).

The verb /WK (“be firm”), in the Polel causative stem (i.e., “make firm”), is used in the second line of v. 17c; it is parallel with lu^P* (“do, act, make”) in v. 17b. YHWH made His sanctuary, establishing it with His own hands. In Psalm 78:54, it is said that YHWH “acquired” this sanctuary through the power of His “right hand”—viz., acting with strength on behalf of His people (against their enemies), cf. verses 6, 12 of the Song. Clearly, this alludes to the Exodus and the entry/settlement of Israel in the Land (though with only a faint allusion to its conquest, cf. Ps 78:55). In this regard, it might be better to translate the verb lu^P* here as “act”, i.e., YHWH acted to gain possession of His holy mountain (where His sanctuary would be located).

The parallelism between the first lines of vv. 17bc is curious with regard to the parallel between the expression “for your sitting” (;T=b=v!l=), i.e., where YHWH will sit enthroned, and the simply Divine title “[my] Lord” (yn`d)a&). The conjunction of this title with the noun vd*q=m! is rare, occurring just once in a late text (Lam 2:20 [cf. verse 7], yn`d)a& vd^q=m!, “holy place of my Lord”), which might be used in support of a late dating for the Song (so Brenner, p. 138). However, the Qumran manuscript 4QExodc (cf. also 4Q174[Florilegium]), along with the Samaritan Pentateuch and a number of MT manuscripts, reads instead the Divine name hwhy (YHWH), and this reading may well be original; it is adopted by Cross/Freedman (p. 250, cf. Cross, p. 131) and a number of other commentators.

Closing Praise (v. 18)

The final couplet of the Song is a YHWH praise-couplet that corresponds to the beginning of the Song proper (v. 3) as well as the opening praise of vv. 1-2 (for which, see the discussion in Part 1). In its terse 2-beat meter (with a 4:5 syllable count), it also resembles the three YHWH-verses (vv. 6, 11, 16b) that provide the framework for the strophic inner-stanzas of the Song (discussed in Parts 3 and 4).

Verse 18

“(May) YHWH rule as king—
into* (the) distant (future) and forever!”

* 4QExodc and the Samaritan Pentateuch lack the prefixed l preposition on the noun <l*u), without any real difference in meaning; as a temporal-durative term (in such a context), <l*u) by itself still means “(into the) distant (future)”.

The succinctness of this bicolon cannot be reproduced entirely in a literal translation (cf. above). In this instance, a more conventional rendering may better capture its brevity:

“May YHWH reign
for ever and ever!”

While there may be some doubt as two whether the yiqtol/imperfect verb forms of v. 17 should be translated as past- or future-tense, the verb here in v. 18, in light of the second line, clearly has a future orientation. The basic declaration in this couplet, with its temporal/durative aspect, occurs quite often in the Psalms (e.g., 10:16; 29:10), the wording here being particularly close to that of 45:7[6]; 146:10. The statement that YHWH reigns (as King), vb El^m*, is even more common—cf. 47:9[8]; 93:1; 96:10; 97:1; 99:1—being tied to the broader theme of YHWH’s Kingship (viz., supreme and universal Rule over the cosmos and the nations), as, e.g., in Psalm 47 (cf. Muilenburg, p. 250), and the collections of 93-100 and 146-150. In this respect, the Divine name here occurs in first (emphatic) position, as also in 93:1; 96:10; 97:1; 99:1. Cf. Davies, p. 341; Propp, p. 545.

The idea of YHWH as king was not expressed, as such, previously in the Song, though it may be said to be implicit in the contrast between Israel and the other nations (and their gods, cf. verse 11). In particular, Pharaoh and his nobles/officials are brought out in the first half of the Song, and the leaders/nobles of Edom and Moab in the second half (cf. on vv. 14-15 in Part 4). The references to the greatness and power of YHWH, and His exalted status, also fit naturally with the idea of God as king. More to the point, His control (as Creator) over the forces of nature, manifest in the miraculous event at the Sea, indicates his Sovereignty over the universe. The verb bv^y` in the second couplet of the stanza (cf. above) is often rendered generally as “dwell”, but more properly means “sit”, and may refer here specifically to YHWH on his seat of rule (i.e., his throne) in his mountain/Temple sanctuary. The same verb may refer to the rulers of Edom/Moab (their ‘thrones’) in a similar way (v. 15).

Ultimately this couplet gives praise to YHWH, recognizing His nature as Creator and Lord over all the world. It is a fitting conclusion to the Song, which so powerfully recounts God’s authority and control over creation itself.

In the concluding Part 6 of this study, we will examine the so-called “Song of Miriam” in verse 21. It is a much shorter poem, and its exact relationship to the longer Song continues to be discussed and debated; it also raises a number of critical questions which are worth considering. A number of the issues specifically related to the date and composition of the Song, discussed at various points throughout this study, will be analyzed in further detail.

    • References marked “Cross” above (and throughout these notes) are to Frank Moore Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History and Religion of Israel (Harvard University Press: 1973).
    • Those marked “Cross/Freedman” are to Frank Moore Cross and David Noel Freedman, “The Song of Miriam”, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 14 (1955), pp. 237-50. This is a revised version of a chapter from their earlier dissertation, published in idem, Studies in Ancient Yawhistic Poetry, Society of Biblical Literature [SBL] Dissertation Series (1975), pp. 31-45.
    • Those marked “Freedman” are to David Noel Freedman, Pottery, Poetry and Prophecy: Collected Essays on Hebrew Poetry (Eisenbrauns: 1980): (1) pp. 131-66, “Early Israelite History in the Light of Early Israelite Poetry” (originally published in Unity and Diversity, ed. H. Goedicke & J. J. M. Roberts [1975]); (2) pp. 179-86, “The Song of the Sea” (originally published in 1968); (3) pp. 187-228, “Strophe and Meter in Exodus 15” (originally published in A Light Unto My Path, ed. H. N. Bream, R. D. Heim, C. A. Moore [1974]).
    • Those marked “Muilenburg” are to James Muilenburg, “A Liturgy on the Triumphs of Yahweh”, in Studia Biblica et Semitica Theodoro Christiano Vriezen … dedicata (1966), pp. 233-51.
    • Those marked “Goldin” are to J. Goldin, The Song at the Sea, being a Commentary on a Commentary in Two Parts (Yale University Press: 1971).
    • Those marked “Brenner” are to Martin L. Brenner, The Song of the Sea: Exodus 15:1-21, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft [BZAW] 195 (De Gruyter: 1991).
    • Those marked “Russell” are to Brian D. Russell, The Song of the Sea: The Date of Composition and Influence of Exodus 15:1-21 (Dissertation, 2002), also published as a monograph (Studies in Biblical Literature 101 [Peter Lang, Inc.: 2007]).
    • Those marked “Davies” are to G. I. Davies, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Exodus 1-18, 2 vols., International Critical Commentary [ICC] (T&T Clark: 2020).
    • Those marked “Utzschneider/Oswald” are to Helmut Utzschneider and Wolfgang Oswald, Exodus 1–15, (English version, trans. Philip Sumpter), International Exegetical Commentary on the Old Testament (Kohlhammer: 2015).
    • Those marked “Propp” are to William H. C. Propp, Exodus 1-18, Anchor Bible [AB], vol. 2 (1999).
    • Those marked “Smith” are to Mark S. Smith, The Pilgrimage Pattern in Exodus, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament [JSOT] Supplements (Sheffield Academic Press: 1997).

Sunday Psalm Studies: Exodus 15:1-21 (Part 4)

The Song of the Sea: Exodus 15:1-21, continued

Central YHWH-Verse (v. 11)

The second (central) YHWH-verse marks the central point of the framework for the two inner stanzas—and, indeed, the center-point of the entire Song. This central position makes appropriate the lengthened 3-couplet structure, whereby the two couplets, with their repetitive (a/b//a/c) parallelism, are extended into a triad by the addition of a third couplet. For a similar triadic structure, cf. Psalm 77:17[16] along with the Canaanite (Ugaritic) examples cited in Part 3.
Many commentators view the first YHWH-verse (or ‘refrain’) in v. 6 likewise as a triadic (3-couplet) structure, by including the couplet of v. 7a as part of the poetic verse.

Verse 11

“Who (is) like you
among the Mighty (one)s, YHWH?
Who (is) like you,
magnificent among the Holy?
—being feared (with) shouts
(for) doing (such) wonder(s)!”

The meter of this YHWH-verse is 2+2, like the others, though this is not altogether clear in the display of the translation above. Indeed, the second line is longer than the first, for both of the first two couplets, with syllable counts of 4:5 (though the count of the second couplet could be parsed as 4:4, cf. Freedman, p. 208).

The emphasis in this praise-verse is on the incomparability of YHWH. No other god (or divine/heavenly being) can be compared to Him. This is expressed by the double question “Who (is) like you…?” (hk*m)k* ym!), cf. Labuschagne, pp. 16-28. The verse touches upon a theme that, while it appears to have been present in Israelite religion almost from the beginning (Exod 20:3ff; Deut 6:4, etc.), came into increasing prominence in the Psalms and poems of the late monarchic, exilic, and post-exilic periods. While the style of wording here can be found in a number of Psalms (e.g., Ps 18:32[31] par; Deut 33:26), it is closest to that of Ps 77:14[13] and 89:6-9 [5-8]; cf. the discussion by Brenner, pp. 114-21.
Psalm 77 and 89 also share with the Song the cosmological-mythic theme of YHWH’s control over the waters (cf. 89:10-11 [9-10]) and its application to the Exodus (cf. 77:17-21 [16-20]).

Psalm 77:14[13] has a similar conjunction of the phrase-expression vd#Q)B^ (see below) and a theological ym! + K= question (“Who is like…?”): “Who (is) a Mighty (one) [i.e., god, la@] great like our Mightiest (one) [<yh!l)a$]?”. Even closer is the wording in Ps 89:6-9; note the following (cf. also Brenner, p. 116):

    • The phrase “among (the) sons of (the) Mighty [one]s” (<yl]a@ yn@b=B!) (v. 7[6]b
    • The phrases “in (the) assembly of (the) Holy (one)s” (<yv!d)q= lh^q=B!) and “in (the) intimate gathering of (the) Holy (one)s” (<yv!d)q= dosB=) (vv. 6[5]b, 8[7]a)
    • The specific question “Who is like you?” (;omk* ym!) (v. 9[8]a, cf. verse 7[6])
    • Emphasis on the “fearsomeness” of YHWH, and that He is to be feared [vb ar@y`, Niphal participle] (v. 8[7])

In Ps 89:9[8], the suffixed form of the preposition omK* (cf. K=) is ;omK* (= ;m)K*), while in Exod 15:11 it is hk*m)K* (Samaritan Pentateuch, ;omK*). The form of the suffix with the final h– is unusual and not much attested before the post-exilic period (being quite common in the Qumran scrolls, cf. Davies, p. 333). The original form surely would be k*m)K* (without vowel letters). 

The meaning of vd#Q)B^ is ambiguous; it can be read three different ways: (i) “in holiness”, (ii) “in the holy (place)”, or (iii) “among the holy (ones)”. In support of (i) is the use of the noun vd#q) in v. 13 (see below). In favor of (ii) is the usage in Ps 77:14[13], coupled with the parallel in Ps 89:6[5]ff, where a heavenly location (viz., a heavenly sanctuary) is clearly in view. At the same time, Ps 89 favors (iii) since the plural <yv!d)q= (“holy [one]s”) occurs twice (vv. 6[5]b, 8[7]a, in variant expressions meaning “in (the) gathering of (the) holy (one)s”. It may thus be that vd#Q)B^ has a similar collective meaning here (cf. Cross, p. 129)—viz., “among the holy (ones)”. Two points argue strongly in favor of this meaning (iii):

    • The LXX translation e)n a(gi/oi$ (“among [the] holy [one]s”); cf. also the Syro-hexapla.
    • The parallel with <l!a@ (= <yl!a@, “Mighty [one]s”) in line 1.
      <yla@ (’ēlîm) is the ordinary plural of the noun la@ (“Mighty [one]”, i.e., G/god). It is the more primitive form, hardly occurring at all in the Scriptures after having been completely replaced in Hebrew by the expanded <yh!ýa$ (’ĕlōhîm); only a few occurrences are preserved, as here, in poetry (cf. Psalm 29:1; 89:7[6]).

Cross/Freedman (p. 247) argue that the text originally read <v!d)Q=B^ (“among the holy [one]s”), and that the final <– likely dropped out, perhaps by haplography with the initial –n of the subsequent word (cf. Cross, p. 129; Kloos, p. 129f).

In order to accommodate all of the possibilities, I have translated vd#Q)B^ as “among the Holy”, while recognizing that the collective/plural “among the Holy (one)s” is primarily in view (so also, e.g., Muilenburg, p. 244). Note, further, how this parallelism is manifest in the two couplets:

    • “among the Mighty (one)s” | YHWH
    • “among the Holy (ones)” | “(you who) are mighty/magnificent”

The participle rD*a=n@ (“being mighty”) must be understood as a descriptive appellation of YHWH (i.e., “you who are mighty”), the same term being used earlier in the first YHWH-verse (v. 6, cf. the discussion in Part 3).

The concluding line is constructed of two short parallel phrases, each beginning with a participle:

    • “being feared (with) shouts”
    • “doing wonderful (thing)s”

The first participle is a Niphal passive form, indicating the response of human beings to YHWH; the second is an active form, referring to what YHWH Himself has done. The principal reference of course is to the nature-miracle at the Sea, and how human beings ought to respond to such a miracle. There is a dual-sense to this response, involving the idea of giving a “shout” (root llh). On the one hand, God’s people will shout praise, worshiping YHWH for what he has done on their behalf; the Song itself is such an expression of praise. At the same time, the surrounding nations will cry out more in awe and wonder (the more proper meaning of the verb ar^y`, “fear, be afraid”). The response of the nations will take on greater prominence in the second part of the Song.

The wording in this couplet is close to that of Psalm 106:22, which similarly refers to the Reed Sea episode. The verbal root alp (“be wonderful, do [something] wonderful”) is frequently used in Biblical poetry in the context of the wonderful things YHWH has done on behalf of His people—most notably, in the events of the Exodus. The specific conjunction of the verb hc*u* (“do”) and the noun al#P# (“wonder[s]”) occurs elsewhere in Psalm 77:15[14]; 78:12; 88:11[10], and also Isa 25:1.
According to Brenner (p. 121f), these texts are all post-exilic, and thus are cited by him in support of a comparable date for the Song.

Third Stanza (vv. 12-16a)

The third stanza (vv. 12-16a) is the second of the two ‘inner’ stanzas (the first being vv. 7-10, discussed in Part 3). As noted, these two stanzas are strophic, with a complex bi-partite structure and a (nearly) identical metrical pattern. The first part of the stanza (i) consists of three 2+2 couplets, while the second part (ii) has four (or five) such couplets; a longer 3-beat (3+3) couplet occurs in-between. This second ‘inner’ stanza, like the second ‘outer’ stanza (v. 17), treats the events after the Reed Sea episode. After YHWH defeated the Egyptians and enabled the Israelite people to make an exit (exodus) out of Egypt, He guided the people to the Promised Land.

Verse 12

“You stretched out your right hand,
(and the) earth swallowed them!”

This couplet begins the second half of the Song. Since the reference still seems to be to the destruction of the Egyptians, many commentators regard v. 12 as part of the first half of the Song (and, indeed, its conclusion). However, in my view, verse 11 does, in fact, mark the center-point of the Song, and thus v. 12 belongs to the second half. The close formal parallelism with v. 10a is significant in this regard:

    • “You did blow with your breath /
      (and the) sea covered them!”
    • “You stretched out your right hand /
      (and the) earth swallowed them!”

These couplets are mirror portraits of the climactic event (of the Reed Sea episode) flanking the central YHWH-verse. The possibility has been raised that v. 12 refers, not to the destruction of the Egyptians at the Reed Sea, but to the Rebellion-episode in the wilderness narratives (Numbers 16); and, indeed, the noun Jr#a# (“earth”) as the subject of the verb ul^B* (“swallow”) occurs elsewhere only in this episode (Num 16:30, 32, 34) or other references to it (cf. Num 26:10; Deut 11:6; Psalm 106:17); cf. Davies, p. 334; Brenner, pp. 122-5. However, while there are likely allusions to the Rebellion-episode here in v. 12, in terms of the dramatic structure of the Song it cannot be the primary point of reference. Rather, it points back to the destruction of the Egyptians (v. 10). As the opening of the second half of the Song, one may regard v. 12 effectively as a temporal-circumstantial point of reference, as if to say— “Once you, YHWH, acted to destroy the Egyptians, then it was that You led your people…” (vv. 13ff).

There are aspects of the earth-reference here in v. 12 that relate to the sea-reference in v. 10, so as to confirm that both verses refer to the same event. First, the sea is part of the earth in the cosmological sense of “the earth” as the lower half of the cosmos—viz., the surface of the earth and the regions below. Secondly, the realm of Death (and the dead), i.e., Sheol, was seen as located in the lower half, in the regions below the earth’s surface. As such, the depths of the underworld are closely related to the depths of the sea (cf. verses 5, 8); note, e.g., Psalm 18:5-6 [4-5]; Jonah 2:3-6 [2-5]. Moreover, Death (and Sheol, the grave) was frequently depicted (i.e., personified) as a being with a ravenous appetite, and with a vast mouth (and throat) capable of swallowing multitudes of living beings; cf. Prov 1:12; Ps 49:15[14]; 69:16[15]; 141:7; Deut 32:22; Isa 5:14; Hab 2:5, and the roots of the imagery in Canaanite religious thought (e.g., Baal Epic, Tablet V [CAT/KTU 1.5] col. i.33-35, ii.2-6). Indeed, in the Rebellion-episode, the earth opening up and “swallowing” the rebels represents a concrete depiction of the poetic image of the underworld (Sheol) swallowing the wicked (cf. the wording in Num 16:30, 33). Thus, the language used in vv. 10 and 12 is part of a rich mythopoetic heritage of idiom and imagery; for more on its application in the Song, cf. Davies, p. 334; Propp, pp. 530-1; Brenner, pp. 122-5.

The “right (hand)” (/ym!y`) of God was mentioned earlier in verse 6 (in the first YHWH-verse), at the beginning of the poetic narration proper. As a symbol, it emphasizes both YHWH’s power and the fact that victory was achieved by He alone, without reliance upon any human intermediary (or military technology). The “stretching out” (vb hf*n`) of His hand suggests the divine power in action. YHWH, as the Creator, does not simply command human armies, but rather the forces of creation itself. Here it is the earth (Jr#a#), viz., the ordered cosmos, that responds to the command of God’s outstretched hand, rather than the sea and the primeval waters (cf. above).

Following the central YHWH-verse (v. 11, see above), the specific point of emphasis is on how the power of YHWH (over creation), manifest in the miracle at the Sea, separates Him from the other gods worshiped by the nations. There is no sense here of an absolute monotheism, but rather the (rhetorical) question posed reflects the relative monotheism of the early Israelite period. The point is not that no other deity exists, but that YHWH is far superior to all other deities, and that He alone is the Creator. His control of the forces of nature marks Him as the Creator and supreme King of the universe.

A strong point in favor of the coherence of v. 12 and vv. 13ff is the alliterative assonance of the verb forms that begin each of the three couplets (so also Muilenburg, p. 246; Utzschneider/Oswald, p. 317):

    • t*yf!n` (nāṭîṯâ), “you stretched out”
    • t*yj!n` (nāḥîṯâ), “you led/guided”
    • t*l=j^n@ (nēḥalṯâ), “you led (to water)”
Verse 13

“In your loyal devotion you guided
(the) people whom you redeemed;
in your strength you led (them)
to (the) pasture-land of your holiness.”

The nature-miracle at the Sea demonstrated not only the power of YHWH (as Creator), but His concern for His people (Israel). The noun ds#j# here, as frequently in the Old Testament, is specifically related to the idea of the covenant bond. The basic meaning may be “goodness, kindness”, but this must be understood in the sense of the kindness shown to someone in fulfillment of the covenant bond. In such instances, as frequently in the Psalms, it connotes the idea of faithfulness and loyalty. YHWH’s protection and guidance of Israel is part of the binding agreement (tyr!B=, covenant) established with Abraham and his descendants. It is a covenant that will be reaffirmed and re-established when the people reach mount Sinai (chaps. 19-24).

Two verbs are used to express the guidance of YHWH for His people. The first (in line 1) is hj*n` (“lead, guide”) and can be used in the context of a shepherd guiding his flock, while the second (in line 2) is lh^n`, which more properly refers to the idea of shepherding, of leading the animals to water (see the note by Davies, p. 335). Thus, the motif is that of God as a shepherd for his people—a familiar image in the ancient Near East and the Old Testament, expressed most famously (and beautifully) in Psalm 23 (cf. my earlier study on the Psalm). Similarly, the noun hw#n` refers primarily to the specific pasture land where a flock can graze safely—sometimes to an actual sheep-fold itself, and thus in the more generalized (figurative) sense of an abode/dwelling for people; cf. Propp, p. 532. It must be taken here as a reference to Canaan as the land promised to Abraham and his descendants as part of the covenant agreement.

The thematic motif of YHWH as a shepherd who guides His people is prominent in a number of other Psalms and poetic-prophetic passages—cf. Mic 7:14; Isa 40:11; 49:10; Ezek 34:13-16, where the orientation is clearly a return from exile, drawing implicitly upon themes associated with the Exodus (viz., the return/restoration as a new Exodus). The motif is applied directly to the Exodus event in Psalm 74:1-2; 77:21[20]; 78:52f; and Isa 63:11-14. Brenner (pp. 127ff) views all of these texts as post-exilic; as usual, he overstates his case, but the prominence of the theme in exilic (and/or post-exilic) prophetic texts is still worth noting.

This land is associated here with the “holiness” (vd#q)) of YHWH (cf. the earlier use of the noun in v. 11, above), implying that it is the place (viz., “holy place”) where God will dwell along with His people (cf. 2 Sam. 15:25; Isa. 33:20; Jer. 31:23). Continuing with the pastoral imagery, it may be likened to a shepherd’s encampment as he tends/guides the flock. The reference anticipates the Israelite entry and settlement in the Promised Land (of Canaan)—as is clear from the mention in vv. 14-15 of the nations living in that land.

Verse 14

“The peoples heard (of it) and quivered (with fear),
writhing takes hold of (those) sitting in Pelešet!”

This couplet separates the first (i) and second (ii) portions of the stanza, just as v. 8b in the prior stanza, which is likewise a longer 3-beat (3+3) couplet. There is an interesting conceptual parallelism as well. In verse 8b, the portrait was of the waters “standing in place” and becoming firm (no longer free and flowing). Similarly, here in v. 14, the nations effectively stand in place, with fear and trembling/anguish “taking firm/strong hold” (vb zj^a*) of them. In this regard, it is worth noting the traditional association between the sea/waters and the nations, expressed perhaps most famously in the apocalyptic image of the “beast(s)” that come out of the sea (Dan 4:2-3ff; Rev 13:1ff). On the association earlier in the Psalms, cf. 33:7ff; 46:4[3]ff; 74:13ff, 23; 89:10-11 [9-10] (in the wider context of the Psalm); 124:2-5; 144:7-8; and, in the Prophets, cf. Isa 8:7; 11:15; 17:12-13; 57:20; Jer 46:7ff; 47:2ff; 51:13ff, 55. Egypt is prominently mentioned in these passages, even to the point of being identified with the great sea-monsters (embodying the primeval and turbulent/unruly waters), Rahab (Isa 30:7; cf. Ps 87:4) and Leviathan (cf. Isa 27:1).

While the event at the Sea results in the people of Israel being guided to their promised land, for the surrounding nations it is a cause for fear (cf. Deut 2:25; Josh 2:9-10; 9:24). In particular, the peoples of Canaan/Palestine, once they hear of what the God of Israel has done for His people, will shudder (vb zg~r*) with fear and twist/writhe (lyj) in anguish. Clearly this reaction anticipates the Israelite settlement of the land, involving a number of military encounters in which, according to the Israelite tradition (and the Scriptural account), YHWH effectively fought on behalf of His people.

The term tv#l#P= (P®leše¾) is normally understood as a reference to the Philistines and their territory along the coastal plain of Canaan/Palestine. It was the region of Canaan closest to the northeastern border of Egypt, and was notable for its prominent location along the Mediterranean. The expression “way of land of (the) Philistines” was used earlier at 13:17, in reference to the most direct route from northern Egypt (i.e. the Delta region) to Canaan. The Philistines are usually regarded as among the “sea peoples” who invaded Egypt in the early-mid 12th century (during the reign of Rameses III), subsequently settling along the coastal plain of Canaan in the south. There is some evidence for migration and settlement of these “sea peoples” even earlier in the 13th century (in the reigns of Rameses II and Merneptah, cf. Cross, p. 124; Freedman, pp. 141ff), so it is conceivable that a reference to “Philistia” could be part of the authentic tradition (deriving from the time of Moses) that underlies the Song. Most modern commentators, however, view the reference as an historical anachronism and an indication of a much later date for the Song; the point will be discussed at the close of this study, when the date and composition of the Song are examined in more detail.

Propp (p. 533) notes the alliterative assonance in the first two words of each line:

    • <yM!u^ Wum=v* (šām‘û ‘ammîm), “(the) peoples heard”
    • zj^a* lyj! (ḥîl ’āḥaz), “writhing took hold”

He also mentions the resonance between the verb zj^a* and the adverbial particle (za*) that begins the next couplet.

Verse 15

“So (also) they were terrified,
(the) chieftains of Edôm;
(the) strong (one)s of Mô’ab,
trembling takes hold of them—
they melted (away) completely,
(all those) sitting (in) Kena’an!”

The second part (ii) is comprised of five couplets; the corresponding part ii of the prior stanza had four couplets (the only metrical difference between the two stanzas).

These couplets build upon the central bicolon of v. 14, which introduces the theme of the fear and trembling/writhing that grips the nations of the land. As noted above, this fear that “takes hold” of the nations is parallel to the standing in place of the waters (in the first half of the Song). The parallelism alludes to the fact that YHWH, the Creator and supreme King of the universe, has power and control over the nations, just as He does over the waters.

The focus is on those “sitting [i.e., dwelling] (in) Canaan” —that is, all the inhabitants of the land, though the verb bv^y` could perhaps be taken (in the more literal sense) of those sitting in the seats of power (i.e. the rulers/leaders), cf. Cross/Freedman (p. 248f). Certainly, it is the leaders of Edom (cf. Deut 2:4) and Moab (cf. Num 22:3) who are in view, with the use of the noun [WLa^, the precise derivation of which remains uncertain, but which here seems to refer to the leader of a clan or tribe (i.e. chieftain). Similarly, the noun ly]a^ applies to the leaders of the people; having the fundamental meaning of strength, it can refer specifically to a ram, and, as such, used as an honorific for men of power (nobles, warriors, etc.).

Even these great leaders, when they hear of what the God of Israel did at the Sea, are left frightened and terrified (e.g., Josh 2:9, 11, 24; 5:11), to the point that they “melt away” (vb gWm) completely. It is perhaps best to take lk here in an adverbial sense (i.e., “complete[ly]”); cf. Cross, p. 130. The last two couplets make clear that it is the miraculous nature of the event at the Sea, performed by YHWH’s outstretched arm (“right hand” in vv. 6, 12), which brings about this sudden and complete sense of terror and dread. Faced with the prospect of the power of the God of Israel, they are left silent (vb <m^D*) and unable to boast any longer of their own strength, nor the strength of the deities they worship (cp. the YHWH-verse of v. 11, above).

The verb lh^B* can denote a “rushing about” in a state of fear and alarm; probably the primary image is of the leaders terrified to the point of being beside themselves (i.e., out of their senses), in a panic (possibly with the nuance of being ‘out of breath’, gasping). The parallel phrase is “trembling grabbed hold of them”, with the noun du^r^ (“trembling, shaking”) as the subject of the verb zj^a* (also used in v. 14), “take firm hold (of), grasp”. The noun du^r^ is quite rare, the only other Scriptural occurrence being in Ps 55:6[5].

Verse 16a

“(Indeed) there fell upon them
(sudden) dread and terror;
at (the) greatness of your arm
they became silent like a stone!”

These closing couplets of the stanza echo the closing lines of the prior one (v. 10, cf. verse 5), particularly through the expression “like a stone” (/b#a*K*). The strength and prowess of the Canaanite leaders ‘sank’ (figuratively) even as the Egyptian force sank (literally) in the waters “like a stone” (v. 5) or “like a lead-weight” (v. 10). The specific verb here is <m^D* (I, “be silent”, cf. hm*D* II), giving a different specific nuance to the comparison with a stone. Through the awesome power exhibited at the Reed Sea, YHWH caused the boasting and bravado of the Canaanite leaders to be silenced, just as he did to the Egyptians (cf. their boastful words in v. 9).
M. Dahood proposes that the verb form wmdy (MT WmD=y]) should be derived, not from <m^d* (I), but from the root hdn (I ,”hurl, throw”); see his brief article, “Nādâ ‘To Hurl’ in Ex 15,16”, Biblica 43 (1962), pp. 248-9.

Cross/Freedman (p. 249) reads a second person verb form in line 1, vocalized lP!T^ (“you made fall”): “You made fall upon them / (sudden) dread and terror”.

Third YHWH-Verse (v. 16b)

Verse 16b

“Until they should pass over—
your people, O YHWH!
Until they should pass over—
(the) people that you acquired!.”

The third and final YHWH-verse displays the same terse 2-beat meter (with 3:5 syllable count) and repetitive parallelism (a/b//a/c) as the other two verses. The focus is not on direct praise of YHWH, but rather praise of what He accomplished for His people—viz., a demonstration of power that enabled them to “pass over” (vb rb^u*).

In the immediate context of the Song, the reference here is to Israel passing across the Sea, made possible (or at least easier) by the divine wind/breath that blew back the waters. However, it is also clear that the focus in the second half of the Song is on the people being led/guided to the promised land of Canaan; therefore, the use of the verb rb^u* (“cross over”) in this couplet carries a double meaning; cf. Propp, pp. 537-8. This is also true for the adverbial particle/preposition du^ (“until”). The fear/dread that grips the peoples of Canaan will last until Israel crosses over into the land, parallel to the nature-miracle that left the Egyptians stymied and allowed the Israelites ‘cross over’ the Sea. The ancient tradition itself clearly recognized the parallel, with the Jordan river serving as a symbol for the Sea (Joshua 3).
On the question of whether the yiqtol/imperfect forms of rb^u* should be translated as past tense (i.e., preterite), along all those earlier in the Song, or present/future, see Cross (p. 130) and Davies (p. 339). In order to facilitate a past-tense translation, Cross (cf. also Cross/Freedman) renders the preposition du^ (“until”) as “while”. A good argument can be made that the forms here are imperfective (durative) rather than preterite, given the use of the preposition du^: i.e., “until they (should) pass over”; I translate these here in the present tense, which also tends to fit the hymnic nature of the YHWH-verse.

The verb hn`q* means “acquire”. However, when applied to YHWH, it can carry the connotation of “make, create” (cf. Gen 14:19, 22), primarily through the idiom of giving birth (see esp. Gen 4:1). For more on this point and the use of the verb, see my recent note on Proverbs 8:22. This range of theological meaning can be found here in the Song. The idea that YHWH created Israel (i.e. as His people), and even ‘gave birth’ to them, is part of the early tradition (cf. Deut 32:6) and would be fitting for the context here. At the same, the emphasis at the beginning of the second half of the Song (v. 13) is on Israel being “redeemed” (vb la^g`)—that is, purchased out of bondage and servitude (in Egypt). Cf. Davies, p. 339; Propp, p. 539f.

The second couplet utilizes the relative particle Wz (also in v. 13). This relative particle (cf. also hz#) is quite distinct from the more common rv#a& and is used exclusively in poetry (occurring at least eight times in the Psalms). It is generally regarded as an archaic feature (see the discussion by Russell, pp. 110-1), though it does occur twice in the deutero-Isaian poems (42:24; 43:21).

While I tend to disagree with Howell’s strophic analysis of the Song, the chiastic pattern which he discerns for vv. 13-16 (p. 38) is intriguing and worth noting:

The remainder of the Song (vv. 17-18) will be discussed in Part 5 of this study.

    • References marked “Cross” above (and throughout these notes) are to Frank Moore Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History and Religion of Israel (Harvard University Press: 1973).
    • Those marked “Cross/Freedman” are to Frank Moore Cross and David Noel Freedman, “The Song of Miriam”, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 14 (1955), pp. 237-50. This is a revised version of a chapter from their earlier dissertation, published in idem, Studies in Ancient Yawhistic Poetry, Society of Biblical Literature [SBL] Dissertation Series (1975), pp. 31-45.
    • Those marked “Freedman” are to David Noel Freedman, Pottery, Poetry and Prophecy: Collected Essays on Hebrew Poetry (Eisenbrauns: 1980): (1) pp. 131-66, “Early Israelite History in the Light of Early Israelite Poetry” (originally published in Unity and Diversity, ed. H. Goedicke & J. J. M. Roberts [1975]); (2) pp. 179-86, “The Song of the Sea” (originally published in 1968); (3) pp. 187-228, “Strophe and Meter in Exodus 15” (originally published in A Light Unto My Path, ed. H. N. Bream, R. D. Heim, C. A. Moore [1974]).
    • Those marked “Muilenburg” are to James Muilenburg, “A Liturgy on the Triumphs of Yahweh”, in Studia Biblica et Semitica Theodoro Christiano Vriezen … dedicata (1966), pp. 233-51.
    • Those marked “Howell” are to M. Howell, “Exodus 15,1c-18: A Poetic Analysis”, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses [ETL] 65 (1989), pp. 5-42.
    • Those marked “Brenner” are to Martin L. Brenner, The Song of the Sea: Exodus 15:1-21, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft [BZAW] 195 (De Gruyter: 1991).
    • Those marked “Russell” are to Brian D. Russell, The Song of the Sea: The Date of Composition and Influence of Exodus 15:1-21 (Dissertation, 2002), also published as a monograph (Studies in Biblical Literature 101 [Peter Lang, Inc.: 2007]).
    • Those marked “Davies” are to G. I. Davies, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Exodus 1-18, 2 vols., International Critical Commentary [ICC] (T&T Clark: 2020).
    • Those marked “Utzschneider/Oswald” are to Helmut Utzschneider and Wolfgang Oswald, Exodus 1–15, (English version, trans. Philip Sumpter), International Exegetical Commentary on the Old Testament (Kohlhammer: 2015).
    • Those marked “Propp” are to William H. C. Propp, Exodus 1-18, Anchor Bible [AB], vol. 2 (1999).
    • Those marked “Labuschagne” are to C. J. Labuschagne, The Incomparability of YHWH in the Old Testament, Pretoria Oriental Series 5 (Brill: 1966).
    • Those marked “Kloos” are to Carola Kloos, Yhwh’s Combat with the Sea: A Canaanite Tradition in the Religion of Israel (van Oorschot / Brill: 1986). The Song (Exod 15) is analyzed throughout pages 127-212.

Sunday Psalm Studies: Exodus 15:1-21 (Part 3)

The Song of the Sea: Exodus 15:1-21, continued

First YHWH-Verse (v. 6)

As discussed in Part 1, the two central stanzas (vv. 7-10, 12-16a) are framed by three YHWH-verses (vv. 6, 11, 16b). These verses give hymnic praise to YHWH; as such, they are similar in character to the opening praise of vv. 1-2 (see esp. verse 2). They have been described as refrains for the stanzas of the Song. This is true to some extent, though their role in providing a framing structure for the inner stanzas is more to the point:

    • First YHWH-verse (v. 6)
      • Strophic Stanza 1 (vv. 7-10)
        • Second (Central) YHWH-verse (v. 11)
      • Strophic Stanza 2 (vv. 12-16a)
    • Third YHWH-verse (v. 16b)

These verses consist of terse 2-beat couplets, with short lines (of 4, or at most, 5 syllables), and evincing a repetitive a/b//a/c parallelism in which the first line of each couplet is identical. This sort of parallelism has ancient roots in Semitic (Canaanite) poetry and has been viewed as an indicator of an early date for the song. A couple of examples from the Baal Epic (from Ugarit, 14th century B.C.) may be used to illustrate:

‘abduka ba‘lu / yayammumi
‘abduke ba‘lu / la-‘olami
“Lord [Baal] (is) your slave, / O (Mighty) Sea!
Lord [Baal] (is) your slave / into (the) distant (future)…!”

hitta ’ibaka / ba‘lumi
hitta ’ibaka / timḫaṣu
“Behold, your hostile (foe), / O Lord [Baal]!
Behold, your hostile (foe) / you shall smite…!”

Note also the similar Scriptural example from Psalm 77:17[16]:

“(The) waters saw you, / O Mightiest (One) [Elohim]!
(The) waters saw you / and were writhing…!”

In all three of these examples a third line (or couplet) is included to produce a dramatic-poetic triad, much as we find with the central YHWH-verse (v. 11) here in the Song: a/b//a/c//d/e.

Verse 6

“Your right hand, O YHWH
(is) mighty in (its) strength!
Your right hand, O YHWH
has smashed (the) hostile (one)!”

The terse repetitive parallelism (a/b//a/c) of these YHWH-verses was noted above, along with the characteristic shortness (4 or 5 Hebrew syllables) of the 2-beat lines. Psalm 118:16 (see v. 15) appears to draw upon a similar line of YHWH-praise tradition:

“Your right hand, O YHWH, / (is) raised high!
Your right hand, O YHWH, / acts with strength!”

YHWH’s “right hand”, portrayed as raised/lifted high, symbolizes and embodies His power—especially strength in battle that leads to victory. This is further emphasized by the combination of the verb rd^a* (“be mighty, great, magnificent”) with the noun j^K) (“firmness, strength, power”). The raised gesture also suggests that YHWH is poised to strike with His hand—as if holding a weapon, or as if the hand itself was a weapon. There are numerous images from the ancient Near East, from the Bronze and early Iron Age, drawing upon Egyptian iconography, that depict a Sky/Storm-deity (such as Baal Haddu) with right hand raised (and poised to strike):

Images from A. Caquot & M. Sznycer, Ugaritic Religion (Brill: 1980), Plates VIII-X

According to this typology, the right hand holds lightning (or a club/mace symbolizing the same) which the Sky/Storm-deity uses to strike his foes (cf. the lines from the Baal Epic cited above). In the Babylonian-Akkadian Creation Epic (Enuma elish), Marduk is described in a similar fashion; see IV.16, where it is sung of him: “Your weapons shall not fail; they shall smash your foes!” (cf. Brenner, p. 98).

For the ancient Israelites, YHWH was the victorious Deity, in control of the storm and the waters, who utilized the forces of nature to crush his enemies—both cosmic enemies and the human enemies of His people. This cosmological-mythic imagery is applied to YHWH with some frequency in the Psalms and other Scriptural poetry (such as the Song of Exod 15). There was a long tradition of such imagery in Israelite/Judean hymns and poems to YHWH, from earliest times all the way down into the post-exilic period; thus, the presence of these motifs in the Song cannot be used, by themselves, to establish a date for the Song’s composition. For more on the subject, see my article “Conflict with the Sea in Ancient Near Eastern Myth”.

The motif of YHWH’s “right hand” (/ym!y`) has somewhat broader significance in Israelite religious thought, symbolizing God’s power, as well as the protection and providential care that He provides for His people (esp. the righteous). It is a frequent motif in the Psalms—e.g., 16:11; 17:7; 18:36[35]; 20:7[6]; 44:4[3]; 60:7[5]; 78:54; 89:14[13]; 98:1, etc.; cf. Deut 33:2—and there are several important occurrences in the deutero-Isaian poems as well (41:10; 48:13; cf. 62:8).

The verb Ju^r* (“smash, shatter, crush”) is quite rare, occurring only here and in Judg 10:8; much more common are the related verbal roots uur (II) and Jxr, cf. Davies, p. 330. Also rare is the verb rd^a* (here Niphal participle), “be powerful, splendid, majestic” (“mighty, great, magnificent,” cf. above), which occurs only here (and v. 11) and in Isa 42:21; cf. also Sirach 36:7; 43:11; 49:13. That fact that it appears only in later texts (cf. also the noun rd#a# in Zech 11:13) might be cited in support of a comparable date for the Song; however, the adjective ryD!a^ and the noun tr#D#a^ occur frequently in earlier texts as well as later ones.
Cross/Freedman (p. 245) parses yrda as an infinitive absolute “used as a surrogate for the finite verb”, a usage that is said to be “more common in early Canaanite”. The sufformative y– is explained as the vestige of a genitive case ending, citing usage in Amarna Canaanite; cf. yrma in Gen 49:11. Davies (p. 329) discusses the matter and prefers to treat the word simply as a participle in the construct state before a prepositional phrase (GKC §130a), marked by the y– as an occasional occurrence of the so-called hireq compaginis. See also the note by Russell, p. 19.

Second Stanza (vv. 7-10)

The second stanza (vv. 7-10) is the first of two ‘inner’ stanzas (the other being vv. 12-16a). These stanzas are strophic, with a complex bi-partite structure and a (nearly) identical metrical pattern, being sung (presumably) to a common melody. The first part of the stanza (i) consists of three 2+2 couplets, while the second part (ii) has four (or five) such couplets; a longer 3-beat (3+3) couplet occurs in-between. This first ‘inner’ stanza, like the first ‘outer’ stanza (vv. 3-5), treats the event at the Reed Sea, when YHWH (through the power of His “right hand”, v. 6) defeated the Egyptians and enabled the Israelite people to make an exit (exodus) out of Egypt.

Verse 7

“Indeed, in (the) abundance of your height
you tore down (those) standing against you!
You sent forth your burning (anger)—
it consumed them like the dry straw!”

Though continuing the 2-beat couplet format, the lines of the stanza are longer (here, 6 syllables) than those of the YHWH-verse (cf. above). The noun /oaG` (“height, rising”) echoes the earlier double-use of the verb (ha*G` “be/rise high”) in verse 1. This noun is regularly used (of human beings) in a decidedly negative sense, connoting haughtiness, pride, arrogance, etc.; it is less common as a positive attribute (of God), Isa 2:10, 19, 21; 24:14; Mic 5:3[4]. The incomparable greatness (and power) of YHWH is indicated by the expression “abundance of height” (/oag` br)). The victory over the Egyptians was achieved through the “greatness” of the “rising (up)” of YHWH Himself. The noun br fundamentally denotes an abundance or increase, either of size, extent, or number.

Through His unsurpassed power, YHWH is able to defeat (and destroy) all His enemies—including the (human) enemies of His people. Their opposition to God is indicated by the verb <Wq (“stand [up]”) in the sense of “stand (up) against”; cf. Deut 33:11; Ps 18:40[39], 49[48], which Cross/Freedman (p. 246) cite as evidence of archaic poetic terminology (cf. Davies, p. 330). The verb sr^h* means “tear down”, or perhaps “throw down”; in any case, it signifies the defeat and destruction of YHWH’s (and His people’s) enemies. Here, of course, it applies to the defeat of the Egyptians (vv. 1b, 4). One can note the contrastive juxtaposition between YHWH’s rising up (high), and the enemies being torn/thrown down.

The noun /orj*, denoting something burning (usually of a burning anger), is a regular idiom for the anger/wrath of God as it is unleashed against the wicked. In the ancient Semitic idiom, this “burning” is often located in the nostril(s) ([a^) of God—an image presumably related to the idea of an angry snorting bull, or something comparable (’Ēl as a bull was an ancient religious symbol). Such powerful ‘snorting’ from the nose/nostrils fittingly conveys the key image in the climactic couplet—that of a great blowing wind (j^Wr) from God. Similarly, the judgment brought by YHWH upon humankind is frequently depicted as a fire—viz., which consumes (lit., “eats [up]”) His enemies (and the wicked) just as fire consumes the dry straw/stubble (vq^); for this metaphor, cf. Isa 5:24; 47:14; Nah 1:6, 10; Mal 3:19 [4:1].
The relative lateness of these parallels is noted by Brenner (p. 100f), who cites them (along with Ps 78:49) in support of his argument that the Song dates from the post-exilic period. By contrast, Cross/Freedman (p. 246) cite the suffix om– on the verb lk^a* (v. 7d, cf. also in vv. 9-10 [below]) as an archaic feature (cf. Russell, pp. 112-6). 

The initial w-conjunction of v. 7a, if it is to be maintained as original (cf. Cross/Freedman, p. 246), should probably be viewed as emphatic-affirmative, i.e., “Indeed…”; so also at the beginning of v. 8a.

Verse 8a

“Yes, with (the) breath of your nostrils
(the) waters were gathered together!”

The first part (i) of the stanza concludes with this couplet, describing the means by which YHWH destroyed His enemies (the Egyptians)—namely, by the manifestation of His power in the storm (i.e., wind, etc.) and His control over the waters (cf. above). The noun j^Wr can mean both “breath” and “wind”; and, indeed, in cosmological-mythic terms, the wind is understood as (coming from) the “breath” of the Deity. In the prose narrative (14:21), it is clear that a powerful wind is meant; but cf. the wind as the “breath” from YHWH’s nostrils, Psalm 18:16[15] (par. 2 Sam 22:16). In that Psalm, similarly, the waters of the sea are blown back to reveal dry ground. Here, in the Song, it is specifically said the wind caused the waters to be “gathered together”. This is the fundamental meaning of the verb <r^u* (II), which occurs only here in the Scriptures (cf. Arabic ʿarama II); there is also a verb ǵrm in Ugaritic which seems to mean “bring together”. Only secondarily did the idea of forming a “heap/pile” (cf. the noun hm*r@u&) become prominent; cf. Davies, p. 331.

Verse 8bc

“(The) flowing (water)s stood (together) as a mass;
(even the) depths congealed in (the) heart of (the) sea!”

The longer (3-beat) couplet of v. 8bc expounds the first part (i) of the stanza, and particularly the preceding couplet of v. 8a.

The basic imagery is that the previously flowing waters are made to stop moving by YHWH. The verb in the first line is bx^n` (in the passive-reflexive Niphal stem), “take (one’s) stand”, “stand in place”. The root lzn (for the plural noun <yl!z+n)) properly means “descend” (i.e., flow down); so, there is a juxtaposition with the flowing waters (that are flowing downward) being made to stand (i.e., upright). Possibly a reference to sea currents is intended.
Cross/Freedman (p. 242) prefer to translate the verb bx^n` as “mount (up)”, i.e., “stand/rise up”; but in the Niphal stem, this verb has the specific meaning of “stand in place/position”. Their translation facilitates the view that, in the original Song, a storm at sea is being described (with rising waves), rather than the standing ‘walls’ of water in the prose narrative. 

The verb in the second line, ap*q*, refers to the gathering together and hardening/thickening of liquid (i.e., “congeal, coagulate”, cf. Zeph 1:12; Sir 43:20; in Job 10:10 [note] it refers to the ‘curdling’ of liquid to form cheese. Cross/Freedman (p. 246; cf. Cross, p. 128) argue that the primary meaning is something like “churn”, or perhaps “foam”; cf. also Smith, p. 209. The lack of Scriptural evidence makes it necessary to consider possible cognates. In some instances, the sense is clearly that of objects (forming) on the surface of water (cf. Syriac qəpāʾ); with other apparent cognates (cf. Arabic qaffa; Ugaritic qpʾ), the emphasis seems to be on something “drying up/out”. Cf. HALOT, p. 1117.

Also rare is the noun dn@, the derivation and precise meaning of which remain uncertain (cf. the discussion by Davies, pp. 331-2). The only other certain Scriptural occurrences are in Psalm 78:13 and Josh 3:13, 16, which clearly refer to this verse in the Song (and/or to a related Sea-event tradition). If the same noun is present in Ps 33:7 (cf. my earlier study), then it clearly refers to an amassed gathering of water. The relationship to possible cognates in Ammonite and Akkadian (nīdu), as well as the specific meanings “dyke, dam”, etc., are likewise uncertain.

I take the second line of the couplet as an intensification of the first—viz., even the depths below (in the “heart of the sea”) stood together and stopped moving. In the prose narrative (14:21-22ff), the waters famously formed a wall on either side of a long strength of dry ground (cf. Psalm 18:16[15]).

YHWH’s power/control over the waters extends all the way down to the depths (tm)h)T=) of the sea. These deepest parts of the sea have a connection to the underlying primeval waters that surround the entire cosmos (cf. Gen 1:2, etc., and the use of <ohT=). By ‘subduing’ the primeval waters at the time of the creation of the cosmos, YHWH has (and maintains) full control over them, to use as He wills; having once been ‘unruly’, they are now obedient to His authority. See again the article “Conflict with the Sea in Ancient Near Eastern Myth”.

Verse 9

“(The) hostile (one then) said
‘I will pursue, I’ll reach (them)!
I will divide up (the) spoil(s)—
my soul will be filled by them!
I will make bare my sword—
my hand shall dispossess them!'”

The first three couplets of the second part (ii) of the stanza record the violent intention of the “hostile (one)” (i.e., Pharaoh and his forces) to pursue after the Israelites (cf. 14:23). These lines on the whole are shorter, with a terse staccato-like rhythm. The initial couplet (v. 9ab), like the YHWH-verse (v. 6), has 4-syllable lines, while the first lines of the next two couplets (v. 9c, e) likewise have 4 syllables. In each of those couplets the short first line is followed by a longer line (v. 9d, f) that gives further elaboration regarding the enemy’s wicked intent.
The longer lines are made so, in part, by the occurrence of the archaic third-person plural om– suffix. Cross/Freedman (p. 246, cf. also Stuart, p. 89) prefer to treat the m– sufformative here as an enclitic <-, which would tighten the meter of the lines and simplifies the translation, eliminating the object suffix, viz., “will be filled” instead of “will be filled by them”. 

Assuming the presence of the third person plural object suffix (om), the point of reference should probably be understood as both the Israelites and their ‘spoils’ (i.e., goods that the Egyptians expect to plunder). The “soul” (vp#n#) of the Egyptians will be “filled by them”, and they will “take possession of them”. The noun vp#n# sometimes carries the nuanced meaning of “appetite”, which is fitting here (i.e., they hope to ‘devour’ the Israelites and their goods). Propp (p. 523f) cites Gen 49:27 which has the mixed metaphor of an animal devouring its prey and an army dividing the plundered spoils; so also Prov 1:12-13 which has the image of Sheol swallowing its victims (cf. v. 12 of the Song) along with greedy/violent humans seeking to ‘fill’ themselves (and their houses) with plunder.
The noun vp#n# can also have the more concrete physical meaning of “throat”, so that the line could conceivably be translated “my throat will be full of them”; cf. Utzschneider/Oswald, p. 317.

The verb vr^y` means “possess, take possession of”; the Hiphil of the verb emphasizes taking possession, sometimes in the negative-privative sense of diverting or removing someone’s possession (i.e., dispossessing a person). If the suffix in the final line refers to the Israelites, then the translation would be “dispossess them” (i.e., take away their possessions”); if it refers to the Israelites’ goods (to be taken as spoil/plunder), then the translation simply is “possess them”; probably both aspects of meaning are in view. With the use of vr^y` there may also be an allusion to the second half of the Song and the idea of driving people(s) out of a place (in order to possess the land).

The idiom of “making bare/empty” (qyr!, Hiphil) the sword has a two-fold meaning. It can simply refer to drawing one’s sword out of its sheath (i.e., “baring” it) in order to strike with it; on the other hand, the sense could also be that of making a land or people bare/empty by killing with the sword (so the LXX translates). Cf. Lev. 26:33; Ezek. 5:2, 12; 12:14; 28:7; 30:11; the occurrences in Ezekiel could suggest that the language here is relatively late.
For the language/wording of v. 9 as a whole, Brenner (pp. 106-12) cites parallels in Psalm 83:13[12] and Ezek 35:10; 36:2, which he uses in support of his argument for a late (post-exilic) date for the Song.

There might even be a conceptual parallel, in the couplet of 9ef, between the motifs of “drawing out” a sword and “driving out” the people (the verb qyr! can have the specific meaning “empty out, pour out”):

    • “my sword” | “I will draw out”
    • “my hand” | “will drive out”

The “sword” and “hand” both express strength in battle and the ability to conquer, and there is surely an intentional contrast made between the “hand” of the enemy and the “right hand” of YHWH (cf. verse 6 above).

Verse 10

“(But) you blew with your breath
(and the) sea covered them!
They went down like a lead weight
into (the) mighty waters!”

These last two couplets of the stanza serve as YHWH’s response to the enemy’s hostile intentions. The bluster of the enemy—note the sequence of seven first-person references over five lines (cf. Freedman, p. 206)—is shown to be of no account when juxtaposed with YHWH’s response (i.e., the two second-person YHWH-references, in a single line) here in v. 10a. Indeed, the human strength, ferocity and military prowess of the Egyptians cannot compare to the power of YHWH—particularly His control over the forces of nature (i.e., storm and waters). As in v. 8a, the noun j^Wr means both “breath” and “wind”; YHWH blows (vb [v^n`) with His breath and the result is a powerful wind. In light of the prose narrative (14:21ff), the blowing in v. 8a, which gathered together the waters, is matched here by a second blowing, which released the waters and caused them to return to their place (and thus drowning the Egyptians). The implication is that the same wind now blows in the opposite direction, causing the waters to fall back down as they were before (cp. 14:21 with vv. 27-28).

The closing couplets of the stanza match the close (v. 5) of the first stanza; the wording is quite similar:

    • “(The) deep places covered them” (v. 5)
      “(and the) sea covered them” (v. 10)
    • “they went down in the depths like a stone” (v. 5)
      “they went down like lead / in the mighty waters” (v. 10)

In v. 5, the verb dr^y` (“go down”) was used; here, it is the far less common ll^x* II (“go/sink down”). This verb occurs only here in the Scriptures (cf. Akkadian ṣalālu, “lie down”; Old South Arabian ḍll, “descend, decline”), but it is related to the noun hl*oxm= (“deep place, depth”) in v. 5. The comparison in verse 5 was with a “stone” sinking in the water; here, it is a “lead-weight”.

The adjective ryD!a^ is related to the verb rd^a* in verse 6 (the adjective being far more common than the verb); the basic meaning is “powerful, mighty”, but also connoting “splendid, glorious, majestic”, especially when used of God. Its application here to the waters here has a two-fold significance: (1) it suggests a connection with the powerful primeval waters, and (2) the earlier use as a description of YHWH (and His power) emphasizes once again YHWH’s control over the waters. The coherence of this terminology within vv. 6-10 indicates that the YHWH-verse in v. 6 is better treated in connection with the following stanza (vv. 7-10) than as a refrain for the one prior (vv. 3-5).

There can be little doubt that the poet of the Song has applied the imagery of cosmological myth (regarding God’s control over the primeval waters) to the Exodus event at the Reed Sea. The association is even clearer in several Psalms (74:13-15; 77:17-20 [16-19]; 106:9) and two of the deutero-Isaian poems (43:16ff [cf. verse 2]; 51:9-10). Brenner (pp. 102-5) cites these as further evidence for a late (post-exilic) dating of the Song.

In Part 4 of this study, we will examine the second and third YHWH-verses (vv. 11, 16b) as well as the third stanza (vv. 12-16a).

    • References marked “Cross” above (and throughout these notes) are to Frank Moore Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History and Religion of Israel (Harvard University Press: 1973).
    • Those marked “Cross/Freedman” are to Frank Moore Cross and David Noel Freedman, “The Song of Miriam”, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 14 (1955), pp. 237-50. This is a revised version of a chapter from their earlier dissertation, published in idem, Studies in Ancient Yawhistic Poetry, Society of Biblical Literature [SBL] Dissertation Series (1975), pp. 31-45.
    • Those marked “Freedman” are to David Noel Freedman, Pottery, Poetry and Prophecy: Collected Essays on Hebrew Poetry (Eisenbrauns: 1980): (1) pp. 131-66, “Early Israelite History in the Light of Early Israelite Poetry” (originally published in Unity and Diversity, ed. H. Goedicke & J. J. M. Roberts [1975]); (2) pp. 179-86, “The Song of the Sea” (originally published in 1968); (3) pp. 187-228, “Strophe and Meter in Exodus 15” (originally published in A Light Unto My Path, ed. H. N. Bream, R. D. Heim, C. A. Moore [1974]).
    • Those marked “Brenner” are to Martin L. Brenner, The Song of the Sea: Exodus 15:1-21, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft [BZAW] 195 (De Gruyter: 1991).
    • Those marked “Russell” are to Brian D. Russell, The Song of the Sea: The Date of Composition and Influence of Exodus 15:1-21 (Dissertation, 2002), also published as a monograph (Studies in Biblical Literature 101 [Peter Lang, Inc.: 2007]).
    • Those marked “Davies” are to G. I. Davies, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Exodus 1-18, 2 vols., International Critical Commentary [ICC] (T&T Clark: 2020).
    • Those marked “Utzschneider/Oswald” are to Helmut Utzschneider and Wolfgang Oswald, Exodus 1–15, (English version, trans. Philip Sumpter), International Exegetical Commentary on the Old Testament (Kohlhammer: 2015).
    • Those marked “Propp” are to William H. C. Propp, Exodus 1-18, Anchor Bible [AB], vol. 2 (1999).
    • Those marked “Smith” are to Mark S. Smith, The Pilgrimage Pattern in Exodus, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament [JSOT] Supplement series 239 (1997).
    • Those marked “Stuart” are to Douglas K. Stuart, Studies in Early Hebrew Meter, Havard Semitic Monographs Series 13 (Scholars Press: 1976).

Sunday Psalm Studies: Exodus 15:1-21 (Part 2)

The Song of the Sea: Exodus 15:1-21, continued

First Stanza (vv. 3-5)

As discussed in Part 1, the Song possesses a symmetric-chiastic structure comprised of four stanzas—two flanking outer stanzas (vv. 3-5, 17) and two inner strophic stanzas (vv. 7-10, 12-16a). The outer stanzas properly each consist of three couplets (bicola); there are metrical differences, though both stanzas generally follow the 2+2 format of the Song, and emendations have been suggested (cf. Cross, pp. 127ff) which would give to the stanzas a consistent 2-beat meter. The initial confessional couplet (v. 3) precedes the stanzas of the Song proper, but I include it with the first stanza for discussion.

Verse 3

“YHWH (the) man of battle,
YHWH (is) His name!”

The stanza begins with this confessional couplet which makes clear, even before the Song proper begins, that YHWH is the one who acted to defeat the Egyptians and liberate His people, and that He is thus a warrior—one who fights, not with human military technology, but with Divine power (see the previous note on verse 2). This theological point may be the reason why the expression hm*j*l=m! vya! (“man of battle”) seems to have been changed to hm*j*l=m! roBG] (“mighty [one] of battle”), viz., to avoid describing YHWH anthropomorphically as a human being (vya!); cf. Davies, p. 379. The Samaritan Pentateuch reads hmjlmb rwbg (“mighty in battle”), while the Aramaic versions also reflect rbg (arbwg, “the mighty [one]”), Syriac gnbrʾ wqrbtnʾ (“mighty and warlike”, or “mighty [one] and warrior”). This same wording occurs in Psalm 24:8: “YHWH, Mighty (One) of battle” (hm*j*l=m! roBG] hwhy).

In spite of its apparent anthropomorphism, the expression hm*j*l=m! vya! (“man of battle”) simply means “warrior”, and thus is essentially synonymous with the substantive roBG] (“mighty [one]”, i.e., “warrior”). Cross-Freedman (p. 244, later Cross, p. 127) argue that hm*j*l=m! vya! and roBG] reflect ancient variants, and that roBG] is more likely original and to be preferred on metrical grounds. But it is more likely that hm*j*l=m! vya! was changed to roBG] than the other way around. Isaiah 42:13 utilizes both ways of referring to YHWH as a warrior:

“YHWH like the mighty (one) [roBG]] goes forth,
like a man of battle [tomj*l=m! vya!]…”

The second line reaffirms that it is, indeed, YHWH, who is the Divine warrior (“man of battle”) in question. This confessional formula, omv= hw`hy+ (“YHWH [is] His name”), is traditional (on the theological significance, cf. 3:15; 34:14, etc.), and can be found in a number of other hymnic-poetic texts, such as Amos 5:8; 9:5-6—the latter reference particularly emphasizing YHWH’s character as a warrior (“YHWH of the armies”, who leads His heavenly “troops” in battle) who holds control over the waters, just as in the Song. A similar heavenly-military focus is in view in Psalm 68:5[4], which resembles the opening portions of the Song in certain respects, include a reference to the chariot-ride (bkr)—that is, the chariot which the warrior YHWH rides in the heavens:

“Sing to (the) Mightiest,
make music (to) His name!
Raise a highway for (the) Rider of (the) Clouds,
with (shouts of) ‘YH(WH is) His name’,*
and leap before His face!”

* For a different way of reading the fourth line, see my earlier note on the verse.

See also Hosea 12:6[5]: “…YHWH, Mightiest (One) [<yh!l)a$] of the armies, YHWH (is) His rk#z@!” As Brenner (p. 78) notes, here rk#z@ (i.e., the name by which YHWH is to be mentioned [and invoked]) is equivalent to <v@ (“name”), as is clear, for example, from the parallelism Exod 3:15. Another example of the confessional-formula in question is found in Jer 33:2.

Brenner (pp. 75-80) would date all of the parallels (to v. 3) cited above as late, and thus he references them in support of a late (post-exilic) dating for the Song. But his dating of the Psalms (and some of the Prophetic texts) is questionable; in fact, only Jer 33:2 is unquestionably from the exilic period (or later). The wording in Isa 42:13, as I see it, draws upon a number of older poetic traditions and synthesizes them, and it would highly precarious to date the Song to the same milieu as the Deutero-Isaian poems on the basis of such a loose parallel.

A strong name-theology came to hold a prominent place in ancient Israelite religious thought, as seen particularly in Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic texts (see esp. the Prayer of Solomon in 1 Kings 8), and evidenced in a number of Psalms (as we have discussed). It is rooted in ancient Near Eastern patterns of thought, whereby a person’s name was seen as representing and embodying the person. In a religious context, this means that YHWH is represented (and embodied) by His name; through invoking and revering God’s name, one establishes a religious bond with God Himself. For more on this subject, see the introduction to my earlier series “And You Shall Call His Name…”.

From a metrical and syntactical standpoint, verse 3 resembles the famous confession of the Šema‘ (Shema), Deut 6:4, as noted by Freedman (p. 202):

    • “YHWH, our Mighty (One) | YHWH (is) one!”
    • “YHWH, (the) man of battle | YHWH (is) His name!”

Even more impressive than the common 2+2 meter and the similar syntax is the fact that both couplets have a 6:4 syllable count.

Propp (p. 516) mentions the alliterative assonance of the couplet, which may be highlighted (according to a reconstructed ancient Israelite pronunciation) as: yahwi ’īš malḥama yahwi šmuh.

Verse 4

“(The) rides of Pharaoh and his might
He has hurled in(to) the Sea!
Even (the) chosen of his third men
were sunk in (the) Sea of Reed(s)!”

The next two couplets of the stanza expound upon the opening praise in v. 1b (see the discussion in Part 1): “(The) horse and its ride / He has hurled in(to) the Sea!”

The opening line (v. 4a) is a longer 3-beat line, which thus disrupts the terse 2-beat rhythm of the Song (but cf. the 3-beat lines of verse 2). Cross-Freedman (p. 244, cf. also Muilenburg, p. 239) follow the suggestion by W. F. Albright that the line is conflate, with hu)r=p^ tb)K=r=m^ (“rides [i.e., chariots] of Pharaoh”) and olyj@w+ hu)r=P^ (“Pharaoh and his [armed] might”) representing ancient variants. Cross (p. 127) adopts the latter of these, producing a couplet that is consistent with the 2-beat meter: “Pharaoh and his (armed) might / He has thrown in(to) the Sea!”. However, Freedman (p. 203) subsequently was more inclined to accept the originality of the MT, allowing the irregular 3+2 meter as an acceptable instance of poetic variation within the stanza.
Cross also argues that the initial w-conjunction of v. 4c is secondary; however, the couplet (v. 4cd) as it stands has a balanced 6:6 syllable count, which could indicate that it is original. Moreover, as Freedman notes, the 8:4 syllable count for the couplet of v. 4ab, with its longer 3-beat first line, is also favorable, giving 12 syllables for each couplet, respectively.

The noun hb*K*r=m^ (“[chariot]-ride”, 14:25) is essentially equivalent with the participle bk@r) (“ride”, also “rider”) in v. 1b. In that earlier couplet, the verb was hm*r* (I, “throw, hurl”); here, with essentially the same meaning, it is hr*y` (I, “throw, shoot”). This verb can be used specifically in the context of shooting an arrow, but the more general sense of “throw” is also attested (e.g., Josh. 18:6; Job 30:19, cf. Davies, p. 329). The imagery of YHWH shooting arrows is very much in keeping with the traditional portrait of Him as warrior (cf. Psalm 7:14[13]; 18:15[14]; 64:8[7]; Job 6:4, etc.); in this instance, He effectively “shot” the Egyptians into the sea.

The third couplet (v. 4b) builds upon the second, being parallel to it. The precise meaning of the term vyl!v* (presumably denoting a “third”) remains uncertain. It has been explained here as referring to the “third man” in a chariot, but also to a military officer of a “third rank”, or possibly to the commander of a third-part of the force; cf. Davies, p. 234; Propp, pp. 492-3; and note the article by B. A. Mastin, “Was the Šālîš the Third Man in the Chariot?”, in J. A. Emerton (ed.), Studies in the Historical Books of the Old Testament, Vetus Testamentum Supplements 30 (1979), pp. 125-54. The implication is that, not only did Pharoah’s chariots drown in the sea, but many of his finest officers and commanders did as well. In the prose narrative of chapter 14 (v. 7), the “third men” (<v!l!v*) are in command over the Egyptian chariot-corps. The chariot-corps represent the aristocratic elite of the Egyptian military, and thus the leading component of Pharaoh’s force. Chariotry was also, at the time, a powerful and revolutionary development in military technology, and one in which Egypt excelled.

The noun lyj@ literally refers to the combined strength or might of the Egyptian military (especially the chariot-corps); it figuratively represents his armed forces as a whole. The “chosen” (rj*b=m!) of these men are the leaders—the best and brightest—of the military, and the term may also refer to their aristocratic status.

The wording of verse 4ab is echoed in Psalm 136:15 (cf. Brenner, p. 92):

“And He shook [vb ru^n`] Pharaoh and his strength in(to the) sea”

The verb is different (ru^n`, “shake [off]”, in the sense of “toss”), but otherwise the wording is quite close and could argue for the shorter reading in v. 4a of “Pharaoh and his strength” [olyj@w+ hu)r=P^] (without the initial “rides of” [tb)K=r=m^]).

Verse 5

“(The) deep places have covered them,
they went down in (the) depths like a stone!”

This final couplet expands upon the general reference in the second lines of the previous two couplets (v. 4bd), viz., to the drowning of the Egyptian military in the sea.

The plural nouns tm)h)T= and týoxm= are virtually synonymous, referring to “deep (place)s” or “depths”, and both can be used specifically for the watery depths of the sea/ocean, which evoke the cosmological motif of the dark primeval waters. This aspect of the imagery in the Song of the Sea will be discussed in Part 3 of this study.

The specific phrase that waters of the sea covered (vb hs*K*) the Egyptians, also mentioned in the narrative of chapter 14 (v. 28), is echoed in several other passages: cf. Josh 24:7; Psalm 78:53; 106:11.

The noun hl*oxm= occurs 11 times elsewhere in the Scriptures, and Brenner (pp. 94-6) argues that (nearly) all of these are late (exilic and post-exilic), which serves as support for his claim that the Song itself is post-exilic. The clearest parallel to v. 5 is certainly post-exilic—Nehemiah 9:11—but I fail to see why this reference could not represent a conflate quotation or echo (v. 5 + 10) from the Song:

“(the one)s pursuing them you threw [vb El^v*] in(to the) depths, like a stone in(to) mighty waters”

Brenner cites similar wording in Jonah 2:4[3] and Mic 7:19, but the use of the verb El^v* in those verses is arguably closer to Neh 9:11 than it is to v. 5 of the Song. His argument that the noun hl*oxm= represents distinctively late vocabulary is rather overstated (cf. Ugartic mṣlt); the occurrence in Psalm 68:23[22] is likely pre-exilic. As Brenner also notes (p. 97), there is wording similar to v. 5 in Psalm 107:24, 26: “…in (the) depths / …they go down [Wdr=y@] (to the) deep places”. One might also mention the wording in Jer 48:15 (cf. Brenner, p. 96): “and (the) chosen of his choice (men) went down [Wdr+y`] to the slaughter”.

The idea that the wm– suffix here (and elsewhere in the Song) is an archaic feature indicative of an early date (cf. Cross, p. 128; Russell, pp. 103ff, 112-6; Utzschneider/Oswald, p. 317) will be discussed at a later point in this study.

Metrically, verse 5 (as it stands) is irregular, evincing a 2+3 meter that may be seen as counterbalance to the 3+2 meter of v. 4ab (see above); the irregularity is less pronounced in terms of the couplet’s syllable count (8:10), cf. Freedman, p. 204. The longer 3-beat line is also fitting as the climax to the stanza (cf. Muilenburg, p. 241). It is possible to parse v. 5 as a 2-beat tricolon, as Smith (p. 208f) does: “(The) deep places covered them, / they went down in (the) depths / (just) like a stone!”.

Note on YHWH as a Warrior

The stanza opened with a declaration of YHWH as a great warrior. This is an aspect of YHWH that set him apart somewhat from the Creator °E~l in Semitic (Canaanite and Amorite) religious thought. There is a strong military component to YHWH’s character and identity in the earlier (pre-exilic) Israelite period. This imagery and symbolism was perhaps at its strongest at the time of the Israelite confederacy (i.e., period of the Judges) and the settlement in Canaan. YHWH functions as a powerful tribal chieftain who leads the people in battle—the expression here is literally “man of battle” (hm*j*l+m! vya!). However, as the Creator God, with control over the natural world, YHWH is able to make use of the forces of nature—especially the storm—to fight the enemies of his people. This is a very old religious-cultural concept, reflected in the ancient expression “YHWH of (the) armies” (toab*x= hwhy). By this is meant the heavenly armies—the sun and moon, forces of the sky and storm, etc—which YHWH can marshal at his command to do battle on behalf of His people. The expression may be a truncated form of a longer (and older) sentence-title, of the Creator God (°E~l) as the One who “causes the (heavenly) armies to be”, incorporating the fundamental (verbal) meaning underlying the name Yahweh. (cf. Cross, pp. 68-71).

There can be no doubt that the battle here in the Song (as in the narrative of chaps. 14-15) is effectively between the heavenly armies (led by YHWH) and the human military (led by Pharaoh), and that this contrast is quite intentional. The initial declaration of YHWH as one who is victorious in battle is contrasted with the fate of the Egyptian forces sunk deep down in the waters of the sea.

The second stanza (vv. 7-10), along with the preceding YHWH-verse (v. 6), will be examined in Part 3 of this study.

    • References marked “Cross” above (and throughout these notes) are to Frank Moore Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History and Religion of Israel (Harvard University Press: 1973).
    • Those marked “Cross/Freedman” are to Frank Moore Cross and David Noel Freedman, “The Song of Miriam”, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 14 (1955), pp. 237-50. This is a revised version of a chapter from their earlier dissertation, published in idem, Studies in Ancient Yawhistic Poetry, Society of Biblical Literature [SBL] Dissertation Series (1975), pp. 31-45.
    • Those marked “Freedman” are to David Noel Freedman, Pottery, Poetry and Prophecy: Collected Essays on Hebrew Poetry (Eisenbrauns: 1980): (1) pp. 131-66, “Early Israelite History in the Light of Early Israelite Poetry” (originally published in Unity and Diversity, ed. H. Goedicke & J. J. M. Roberts [1975]); (2) pp. 179-86, “The Song of the Sea” (originally published in 1968); (3) pp. 187-228, “Strophe and Meter in Exodus 15” (originally published in A Light Unto My Path, ed. H. N. Bream, R. D. Heim, C. A. Moore [1974]).
    • Those marked “Muilenburg” are to James Muilenburg, “A Liturgy on the Triumphs of Yahweh”, in Studia Biblica et Semitica Theodoro Christiano Vriezen … dedicata (1966), pp. 233-51.
    • Those marked “Brenner” are to Martin L. Brenner, The Song of the Sea: Exodus 15:1-21, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft [BZAW] 195 (De Gruyter: 1991).
    • Those marked “Russell” are to Brian D. Russell, The Song of the Sea: The Date of Composition and Influence of Exodus 15:1-21 (Dissertation, 2002), also published as a monograph (Studies in Biblical Literature 101 [Peter Lang, Inc.: 2007]).
    • Those marked “Davies” are to G. I. Davies, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Exodus 1-18, 2 vols., International Critical Commentary [ICC] (T&T Clark: 2020).
    • Those marked “Utzschneider/Oswald” are to Helmut Utzschneider and Wolfgang Oswald, Exodus 1–15, (English version, trans. Philip Sumpter), International Exegetical Commentary on the Old Testament (Kohlhammer: 2015).
    • Those marked “Propp” are to William H. C. Propp, Exodus 1-18, Anchor Bible [AB], vol. 2 (1999).
    • Those marked “Smith” are to Mark S. Smith, The Pilgrimage Pattern in Exodus, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament [JSOT] Supplement series 239 (1997).

Sunday Psalm Studies: Exodus 15:1-21 (Part 1)

The Song of the Sea: Exodus 15:1-18, 20-21

As the Sunday Psalm Studies continue, we will be focusing on a number of the Psalms that have regularly been considered among the oldest, the most ancient Hebrew songs and poems preserved in the Scriptures. These Psalms have, for the most part, already been examined in the prior studies (as well as in other notes and articles on this site); now it is time to subject them to a closer and more detailed analysis.

In this regard, the Psalm with which we will begin—the Song of the Sea (<Y`h^ tr^yv!, Exodus 15:1-18ff), sometimes also called the “Song of Moses” (or even the “Song of Miriam”)—was discussed in an earlier set of notes, and that prior exegesis will be incorporated into the current expanded study. It is natural that my own views and approach regarding the Song would change somewhat over time, as new observations and insights emerge. In addition, I will be engaging much more extensively with modern scholarship on the Song, though (hopefully) without overburdening the reader in the process. A particular number of the most relevant (and useful) commentaries and studies will be cited regularly by shorthand abbreviation (usually last name of the scholar, followed by page number); as is customarily the case in the exegetical notes and studies on this site, such abbreviations are provided at the bottom of each article.

Introduction to the Song

The issue of the dating of the Song, and its status as one of the oldest Scriptural poems, remains contested and in dispute. Indeed, in spite of the apparent antiquity of the Song (at various points) and its attribution (within the narrative) to Moses and Miriam and the Israelite people of the time, a number of scholars in the late 19th and early 20th century, were inclined to view the Song as a relatively late production—viz., from the exilic or (early) post-exilic period. See, for example, the articles by A. Bender (“Das Lied Exodus 15”, Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft [ZAW] 23 [1903], pp. 1-48) and P. Haupt (“Moses’ Song of Triumph”, American Journal of Semitic Languages [AJSL] 20 [1904], pp. 149-72). The situation changed notably in the second half of the 20th century in the wake of the pioneering studies by F. M. Cross and D. N. Freedman (along with, and following, the work of W. F. Albright), who treated the Song as an early Israelite poem from the pre-monarchic period (13th-11th century B.C.); their analyses exercised a considerable influence over an entire generation of scholars, and an early date for the Song came to be recognized (and even assumed) by many commentators.

Now, in recent decades, the pendulum has swung back, and increasingly scholars are viewing the Song as a much later (exilic or post-exilic) work. One of the first modern commentators to provide extensive arguments for a post-exilic (e.g., c. 450 B.C.) date is Martin L. Brenner in his 1991 monograph The Song of the Sea: Exodus 15:1-21 (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft [BZAW] 195). And yet, there are still scholars who accept a relatively early date for the Song, as stemming from the premonarchic or early Kingdom-period (12th-10th century B.C.); see, for example, the dissertation-monograph by Brian D. Russell (The Song of the Sea: The Date of Composition and Influence of Exodus 15:1-21 [2007]), or the commentary by G. I. Davies (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Exodus 1-18, 2 vols., International Critical Commentary [ICC]). There is thus a considerable divergence of opinion as to the age of the Song, even with regard to objective linguistic evidence such as vocabulary, syntax, poetic conventions and distinctive style. 

In any event, the dating of ancient Hebrew poetry is itself fundamentally difficult and problematic. There are number of factors and reasons for this difficulty. To begin with, poetic conventions and traditions can persist for centuries, over many generations, and it is much more likely for archaic features of the language to be preserved in poetry than in prose. The main reason for this is that poetry, with its specific stylized and formal aspects, is less likely to be ‘modernized’ over time. To the extent that the Exodus narratives (and/or their underlying traditions) derive from the premonarchic period (even back to the 13th century and the time of Moses), they have surely been developed, adapted, and modernized during the course of transmission. It is primarily in the early poetry that the older language (and literary/poetic style) has been preserved. This, however, creates certain text-critical problems in our study of the poems. Over time, copyists become less familiar with the older language and style, and there are signs that archaic features in the poetry were misunderstood and (at times) mistakenly ‘corrected’ or given an inaccurate pointing. While we cannot always be sure that transmission errors have taken place, the possibility must be considered in any proper critical study of the text.

At the same time, a poet from a later period may intentionally utilize archaic (or archaic-sounding) elements for a specific literary-dramatic, theological, or other purpose. Indeed, a number of commentators who favor a relatively late date for the Song would explain the apparent ancient/archaic features as learned and artificial ‘archaisms’, so as to fit the Mosaic setting of the narrative. To this we may add the relative lack of evidence for comparison, when attempting to judge the date of a Psalm or other Scriptural poem on linguistic grounds; often there are simply too few occurrences (in the surviving material) of a particular word, phrase, idiom, or syntactical-poetic convention for a definitive determination. All of these factors complicate the situation and hinder our ability to make assessments for the date of many ancient Hebrew poems that are anything more than tentative (at best).

The Song’s age/date also relates to other literary- and compositional-critical questions, among which two of the most prominent are: (1) the relationship of the Song to the narrative setting and framework of chapters 14-15, and (2) the relationship of the Song to the shorter ‘Song of Miriam’ in vv. 20-21. These and other issues will be discussed at various points in the exegetical notes, and again (in further detail) as part of a concluding study. With regard to the second of the two stated questions, it may be worth briefly noting three interpretive models (cf. the summary by Zenger, p. 453f):

    • Verse 21 represents a refrain for the Song, which may have been sung after each verse or strophe/stanza; this would be in accord with how the narrative framework presents the matter—viz., the principal Song sung by Moses and the men, with the response sung (with dancing) by Miriam and the women.
    • Vv. 20-21 provide a shorthand reference to the Song, including just the opening lines; this quotation was part of the older narrative, to which was added a full/expanded form of the Song, specifically associated with Moses (rather than Miriam) as befits the overall narrative context.
    • The Song itself represents a secondary expansion of the shorter ‘Song of Miriam’ (vv. 20-21), building upon the earlier song (v. 1) and expounding it (vv. 4ff) with an additional section (vv. 13-17) dealing with the settlement of the Israelite people (in the land of Canaan).

There can be little doubt that Song is closely related to the narrative framework of chapters 14-15, with the crossing of the Sea episode being narrated in chapter 14, and the parallels between narrative and poem will be discussed throughout the notes. This conjunction of a battle narrative followed by a poem/ode celebrating victory is similar to the situation in Judges 4-5 (cf. the essay by Alan J. Hauser, “Two Songs of Victory: A Comparison of Exodus 15 and Judges 5”, Directions in Biblical Hebrew Poetry, ed. Elaine R. Follis [1997], pp. 265-84). There are also contemporary parallels from ancient Egypt, such as in the chronicles of the 13th century Pharaohs Rameses II (against the Hittites) and Merenptah (against the Libyans). However, as Sarna (pp. 75-76) notes, the Egyptian accounts celebrate the accomplishments of a human king (Pharaoh), while in the Exodus narrative it is the victories of God (YHWH) as Sovereign that are to be praised.

Structure/Outline

When it comes to the poetic structure of the Song there is little agreement, beyond the recognition of a broad two-part historical division—(i) episode at the Reed Sea (vv. 1-12), and (ii) exodus and settlement of the people (vv. 13-18). Any finer division of the Song into stanzas/strophes or verses has proven difficult, with a variety of approaches having been made by commentators toward segmenting and delineating the poem.

For this study, I have adopted a four-stanza division, with the following basic format: (a) hymnic YHWH praise-verse, followed by (b) an expository stanza recounting what YHWH has done on behalf of His people. This format itself may be seen as developing out of the initial call to praise in v. 1 (cf. also v. 21): YHWH hymn (v. 1a), His deeds on behalf of Israel (v. 1b). The stanzas are comparable in size/length, but otherwise irregular, with only the central two stanzas (vv. 7-10, 12-16) evincing a metrically similar strophic pattern (cf. especially the study by Freedman, pp. 187-227).

    • Opening praise (v. 1b)
      with additional YHWH-hymn (v. 2)
    • Stanza 1 (vv. 3-5)
    • YHWH-verse (v. 6)
    • Stanza 2 [Strophe I] (vv. 7-10)
    • YHWH-verse (v. 11)
    • Stanza 3 [Strophe II] (vv. 12-16a)
    • YHWH-verse (v. 16b)
    • Stanza 4 (v. 17)
    • Closing praise (v. 18)

At the same time, I am inclined to follow Freedman in recognizing a distinct concentric-chiastic structure to the Song. The core of the Song—viz., the central pair of strophic stanzas—is framed by the three YHWH-verses (vv. 6, 11, 16b). The central position of the second YHWH-verse (v. 11) is indicated by its expanded form—including a third couplet (v. 11c) that departs from the repetitive parallelism of the verse-pattern. Here is an outline of the Song’s concentric structure:

    • Opening praise (vv. 1b-2)
      • Outer Stanza—Reed Sea event (vv. 3-5)
        • YHWH-verse (v. 6)
          • Inner Stanza—Reed Sea event (vv. 7-10)
            • Central YHWH-verse (v. 11)
          • Inner Stanza—Exodus/Settlement (vv. 12-16a)
        • YHWH-verse (v. 16b)
      • Outer Stanza—Exodus/Settlement (v. 17)
    • Closing praise (v. 18)

Metrically, the Song generally employs a short 2-beat couplet (bicolon) format. This meter is established in the opening praise of v. 1 and is repeated throughout the YHWH-verses. The stanzas also utilize a 2+2 meter, punctuated by longer 3-beat lines (sometimes at the close of a strophe). In the text as we have it, the meter is not consistent. When approaching such situations in early Hebrew poetry, many commentators are inclined to emend the text whenever possible, to restore a more consistent rhythm—based on the fair assumption that the poem would originally have been sung according to a more regular, consistent (performable) rhythm. Such emendation and reconstruction must be approached with great care and caution; I must admit that I am not inclined to reconstruct the text of the Song as aggressively as Cross, for example, does.

Narrative Introduction

The Song is set within the context of the prose narrative through the introductory notice of verse 1a:

“Then Moše sang—and (with him the) sons of Yisrael—this song to YHWH. And he said (this), saying:”

The statement indicates that the Song is in response to the actions of YHWH in delivering the people of Israel from the Egyptian forces (narrated in chapter 14). The nature-miracle at the “Reed Sea” ([Ws-<y~) is the occasion for praising God and serves as the basis for the opening praise (v. 1b) and the first half of the Song as a whole.

Opening Praise (vv. 1b-2)

Verse 1b

“(Come,) I will sing to YHWH,
for rising, He has risen high!
(The) horse and its ride
He has hurled in(to) the Sea!”

Muilenburg (p. 238) refers to this opening praise as a “hymnic introit”, which is fitting. Like many of the Scriptural Psalms, it is essentially a call to praise, whereby the Psalmist speaks on behalf of the people (i.e., the congregation). The imperfect verb form (hr*yv!a*) has jussive/cohortative force (“[come,] let me…” [i.e., “let us…”]); the Targum and Syriac versions do, indeed, render as a plural verb (“let us sing…”, “we would sing…”). Cross prefers to emend the text here to a simple imperative (Wryv!, “sing!”), which tightens the rhythm and matches the opening of the parallel song in verse 21 (and is supported by the Samaritan Pentateuch [causal imperative]); he may be correct in terms of the earliest/original form of the poem. The first-person formulation matches the beginning of the Song of Deborah (Judg 5:3) and likewise occurs with some frequency in the Psalter (e.g., 89:2[1]; 101:1; 108:2[1]); Muilenburg also cites the Nikkal poem from Ugarit (’ašr nkl w’eb…).

The expression hw`hl^ (with the prefixed preposition l), also occurring in the narrative introduction (v. 1a), can mean “unto YHWH” or “with regard to YHWH” (i.e., “about/concerning YHWH”), and a few commentators (e.g., Freedman, Propp, Davies) opt for the latter, particularly since the Song is indeed about what YHWH has done. This may be supported by the parallel in Judges 5:3; note also the occurrence in Exod 14:3, where yn@b=l! clearly means “about/regarding the sons of (Israel)” rather than “to the sons of (Israel), cf. Davies, p. 324f.

As noted above, the primary meter for the Song is established in these first two couplets (2-beat, 2+2). The terse, staccato-like rhythm and repetitive parallelism are typical of Canaanite poetry of the period (as glimpsed, for example, in the 14th-13th century poetic texts from Ugarit).

The second line utilizes the common Semitic convention of doubling a verb for emphasis, thereby intensifying its force. Usually this is done by adding a cognate infinitive, creating a syntax which is most difficult to render literally in English. Here an approximate translation would be “rising, he has risen”, with a doubling of the root hag (“be high, raise high”). Though the root is relatively common (including references to YHWH’s greatness and exaltation), occurrences of the verb itself are actually rare (just five other instances in the Hebrew Scriptures). The active sense of the Qal stem suggests that the reference is to YHWH having raised Himself in might against the enemies of Israel; at the same time, it indicates a call to exalt YHWH (in praise), because He Himself is exalted. The initial particle yK! (rendered “for”) provides the reason why YHWH is to be praised, following a traditional syntax that occurs relatively often in the praise-Psalms (see esp. at the beginning of Psalms, e.g., 106:1; 107:1; 117:1f; 118:1).

The second couplet declares succinctly the victory of God in battle, defeating the Egyptian forces who threatened His people. It summarizes the powerful nature-miracle that occurred at the Reed Sea (as recorded in the tradition), which the Song develops more descriptively in the subsequent stanzas (to be discussed). The Masoretic texts reads obk=r) (“its rider”), which might give one the mistaken impression that it refers to one riding the horse, instead of the person riding in the chariot drawn by the horse. Whether or not Cross (cf. also Uzschneider/Oswald) is correct that the original text is better vocalized as bk#r# (“ride”, cf. 14:18, 23, oBk=r!, “his ride”), the reference is clearly to the chariot-ride (and the soldier/officer[s] riding in it)—cf. Jer 17:25; 51:21; Hag 2:22, and the various occurrences of the verb bkr in the context of mounting a chariot (Gen 41:43; 1 Kings 18:45, etc., cited by Propp, p. 510). If the reference were actually to the rider of a horse (i.e., cavalry), then it would certainly be anachronistic to the setting of the poem (cf. Davies, pp. 325-6); Brenner (pp. 82ff) assumes that it is the rider of a horse that is meant, and cites the point in support of a late (post-exilic) date for the Song.

The verb hm*r*, elsewhere refers to the shooting of arrows from a bow (Jer 4:29; Ps 78:9); thus, one may speak of YHWH “shooting” (i.e., thrusting, propelling) the Egyptian chariots into the sea (cf. Russell, p. 16; Propp, p. 511).

Verse 2a

“My strength and my protection (is) YH(WH),
and He has come to be salvation for me!”

As Cross/Freedman (p. 243) notes, the pair of couplets in verse 2 have a longer 3-beat (3+3) meter which, if original, seems to anticipate the 3-beat lines at the close of strophes/stanzas in vv. 5, 8b, and 14. Cross himself (p. 127) is inclined to treat v. 2a as a secondary addition, a traditional praise-couplet that is also found in Psalm 118:14 and Isa 12:2. Brenner (pp. 54-60ff) makes much of these parallels in support of a late (post-exilic) date for the Song. It may well be that those two texts are quoting from the earlier Song, as Propp suggests (p. 511).

Verse 2 reaffirms the praise that is due to YHWH. It is his strength and might that have led to the victory. There is almost certainly an intentional contrast between the Egyptians’ reliance upon military technology (chariotry) and Israel’s reliance upon the power of God (cf. Psalm 20:8[7]; Isa 31:1; 36:9). The word hrmz, parallel with zu (“strength”), should be understood as deriving from a separate root rmz with a similar meaning (“be strong, brave”, etc). The comparable ¼mr in Ugaritic is used in a military context (for armed troops, etc), which is very much appropriate here; cf. Cross/Freedman (p. 243), Propp (p. 512f), Davies (p. 327). This root zmr/¼mr occurs frequently in Semitic names, going back to the Mari texts (Zimri-lim, etc). As this root generally dropped out of use in Hebrew, it is easy to see how copyists might have mistaken it here for the more common root rmz meaning “make music”. It thus can also be cited in support of an early date for the Song.

The form trmz (apparently without a first person singular suffix [y-]) can be explained several ways (cf. Freedman, p. 200): (i) the suffix on the prior noun zu (“strength”) does double-duty (“my strength and [my] protection”); (ii) the yod (y) at the beginning of the next word does double-duty, making it unnecessary to write a second y for the suffix; (iii) in the early spelling the word would have been written without a vowel letter (i.e., T!r^m=z]w+) and a vestige of this older orthography has been preserved. Quite likely, we are dealing with a combination of (ii) and (iii); that a suffix is intended on both nouns is supported by the balanced syllable count (7:7) for the couplet that is produced as a result.

The double-use of a prefixed l preposition—hu*Wvyl! yl!—can be a bit tricky to translate. In English, we would probably say “as salvation for me”, but perhaps more literally, “(as a source) for salvation to me” (Freedman, p. 200, literally renders “[belonging] to me for salvation”); for poetic concision I have slanted the translation a bit, “He has come to be salvation for me”. For this terminology, cf. 2 Sam 10:11; Psalm 118:21.

Note the alliterative assonance in all three word pairings of the couplet: (i) ‘āzzî wezimratî, (ii) Yāh wayhî, (iii) lî lîšû‘â.

For more on v. 2a see the articles by S. B. Parker, “Exodus XV 2,” Vetus Testamentum [VT] 20 (1970), pp. 358-59, and M. L. Barre, “‘My Strength and My Song’ in Exodus 15.2”, The Catholic Biblical Quarterly [CBQ] 54 (1992), pp. 623-37.

Verse 2b

“This (is) my Mighty (One) and I will exalt Him,
Mighty (One) of my father, and I will lift Him high!”

This is a straightforward 3-beat couplet with clear parallelism. It repeats the identification—so vital to the early Exodus narratives—of YHWH with both: (a) the Creator °E~l (“Mighty [One]”) and (b) the God (°E_lœhîm, “Mightiest [One]”) worshiped by the ancestors of Israel as Creator and Protector.

The verbs hwn and <wr are in parallel; the latter means “be high” (cf. hag in v. 1b, above), so, for this reason, a second hWn root (II) with a comparable meaning is assumed, rather than hWn (I), “wander, journey (toward a destination/abode)”. Based on the noun hw#n` (from hwn I, cf. verse 13), a Hiphil form of hwn (I) might mean “make/establish a dwelling”. However, it seems better to connect the form here with han (“be/make beautiful”), or, alternately, with Arabic nawwaha (“raise, elevate, exalt”); cf. Propp (p. 514), Davies (p. 328). The second verb form (of <Wr Polel, “make/lift high”) unusually includes an energic n before the Wh– suffix (cf. GKC §58i,k). Freedman (p. 200) argues that the w-particles on both verbs are emphatic, not conjunctive—i.e., “(whom) indeed I exalt…indeed I lift high!”

The final line of v. 2 is longer than the first three, with 11 syllables rather than 7. Cross/Freedman (p. 243f) would address this irregularity, by interchanging the verbs of lines 3 and 4, respectively, which produces a balanced (9:9) couplet. Freedman (p. 201f) himself would allow for the unbalanced couplet as a legitimate instance of poetic variation. Indeed, the longer line is fitting for the close of the poetic section (vv. 1b-2).

The first Stanza (vv. 3-5) will be discussed in Part 2 of this Study.

    • References marked “Cross” above (and throughout these notes) are to Frank Moore Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History and Religion of Israel (Harvard University Press: 1973).
    • Those marked “Cross/Freedman” are to Frank Moore Cross and David Noel Freedman, “The Song of Miriam”, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 14 (1955), pp. 237-50. This is a revised version of a chapter from their earlier dissertation, published in idem, Studies in Ancient Yawhistic Poetry, Society of Biblical Literature [SBL] Dissertation Series (1975), pp. 31-45.
    • Those marked “Freedman” are to David Noel Freedman, Pottery, Poetry and Prophecy: Collected Essays on Hebrew Poetry (Eisenbrauns: 1980): (1) pp. 131-66, “Early Israelite History in the Light of Early Israelite Poetry” (originally published in Unity and Diversity, ed. H. Goedicke & J. J. M. Roberts [1975]); (2) pp. 179-86, “The Song of the Sea” (originally published in 1968); (3) pp. 187-228, “Strophe and Meter in Exodus 15” (originally published in A Light Unto My Path, ed. H. N. Bream, R. D. Heim, C. A. Moore [1974]).
    • Those marked “Muilenburg” are to James Muilenburg, “A Liturgy on the Triumphs of Yahweh”, in Studia Biblica et Semitica Theodoro Christiano Vriezen … dedicata (1966), pp. 233-51.
    • Those marked “Zenger” are to Erich Zenger, “Tradition und Interpretation in Exodus 15 1–21”, in Congress Volume: Vienna, 1980 Vetus Testamentum [VT] Supplements 32 (Brill: 1981), pp. 452-83.
    • Those marked “Brenner” are to Martin L. Brenner, The Song of the Sea: Exodus 15:1-21, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft [BZAW] 195 (De Gruyter: 1991).
    • Those marked “Russell” are to Brian D. Russell, The Song of the Sea: The Date of Composition and Influence of Exodus 15:1-21 (Dissertation, 2002), also published as a monograph (Studies in Biblical Literature 101 [Peter Lang, Inc.: 2007]).
    • Those marked “Davies” are to G. I. Davies, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Exodus 1-18, 2 vols., International Critical Commentary [ICC] (T&T Clark: 2020).
    • Those marked “Utzschneider/Oswald” are to Helmut Utzschneider and Wolfgang Oswald, Exodus 1–15, (English version, trans. Philip Sumpter), International Exegetical Commentary on the Old Testament (Kohlhammer: 2015).
    • Those marked “Propp” are to William H. C. Propp, Exodus 1-18, Anchor Bible [AB], vol. 2 (1999).
    • Those marked “Sarna” are to The JPS Torah Commentary: Exodus twm?, commentary by Nahum M. Sarna (Jewish Publication Society: 1991).

Sunday Psalm Studies: Psalms of Solomon 17-18 (Part 3)

Psalm 17 (of Solomon), continued

The bulk of the Messianic Song of Ps Sol 17 was examined in Part 2 of this study. The Song consists of two main stanzas (vv. 26-34a, 34b-42), with an introduction (vv. 21-25) and conclusion (vv. 43-44). The conclusion will be treated here, before turning to the 18th Psalm.

Messianic Song: Conclusion (vv. 43-44)
Verse 43

“His utterances (are) shown pure by fire,
over prized gold (of) the first (order);
in (the) gatherings he will thoroughly judge (the) tribes
of a people made holy.
His words (are) as (the) words of (the) holy (one)s
in (the) midst of peoples made holy!”

The Messiah’s rule over the Kingdom of God’s people, during the eschatological New Age of Israel’s restoration, was described in some detail in Stanza 2. Here in the conclusion the focus is on his role as judge in the midst of the people. He will “judge thoroughly/throughout” (vb diakri/nw), with words that are holy and pure.

Verse 43 is comprised of three pairs of couplets, the last of which (e-f) is parallel to the first two (a-d). The first line of the third couplet (e) matches the first couplet (ab):

    • “His utterances (are) shown pure by fire,
      over prized gold (of) the first (order)”
    • “His words (are) as (the) words of (the) holy (one)s”

The plural nouns r(h/mata (“utterances”) and lo/goi (“words”) are parallel, with identical meaning. The two comparisons are likewise similar in meaning—both emphasize the holiness and purity of the Messiah’s words. The first comparison, with purified gold, is traditional (Psalm 12:7[6]; Mal 3:3; cf. also Isa 48:10; Jer 9:7; Dan 11:35; Zech 13:9); the eschatological aspect of this imagery is notable in Mal 3:2-3; Dan 11:35 and Zech 13:9. The verb puro/w means “be/set on fire”; its use here (as a perfect participle, viz., a verbal adjective) has the contextual meaning “shown/proven pure by fire”, “tested/refined by fire”. The second comparison focuses of the specific attribute of holiness. Here the substantive plural adjective a%gioi (“holy ones”) likely refers to the divine/heavenly beings (i.e., angels), though it can also refer to human beings. Indeed, for the Community of the Qumran texts, there was a direct correlation between the “holy ones” on earth (i.e., the members of the Community) and those of heaven (the angels); cf. Ps 89:6-8 [5-7]. At the end time, the heavenly ones will join together with those on earth. The community of the Psalms of Solomon may have held similar eschatological ideas regarding their own religious self-identity and place in the coming New Age.

The Messiah will utter his holy words in the midst of a holy people—viz., the faithful ones of Israel/Judah who will be “made holy” (vb a(gia/zw) by God in the New Age. The use of the plural la/oi (“peoples”) in the final line may reflect a stylistic variation; more likely, it is meant to distinguish the tribes of the people (cf. the parallel in the second couplet [cd]), though it may also allude to the eschatological expectation that the other nations (viz., those who survive the Judgment) will likewise be purified, joining together with Israel in the worship of YHWH during the New Age.

Verse 44

“Happy (are) the (one)s coming to be (born) in those days—
to see the good (thing)s of Yisrael,
in (the) gathering together of (the) tribes,
which God shall do!”

The Song closes with a beatitude, using the traditional formula beginning with the adjective maka/rio$ (“happy, blessed” = Hebrew yr@v=a^); cf. my earlier note on this formula. The blessing is for all those people who come to be born during the time of the Kingdom, under the Messiah’s rule, in the New Age of Israel’s restoration.

Conclusion of the Psalm (vv. 45-46)
Verse 45

“May God make His mercy come quickly upon Yisrael!
May He rescue us from (the) uncleanness of profane enemies!”

The Psalm concludes with a prayer, similar to the one at the beginning of the Messianic Song (vv. 21ff), asking for YHWH to send His Messiah and thus to usher in the New Age of restoration for His people. The hope that this will occur quickly (vb taxu/nw) almost certainly reflects the eschatological expectation of the psalmist (and of the community that produced and used the Psalms)—viz., that the coming of the Messiah will, indeed, happen very soon.

Verse 46

“(The) Lord—He (is) our King into the Age and still (further)!”

The final line of the Psalms echoes the initial line (in v. 1), with a theological declaration that YHWH is the true King of His people. The Davidic Messiah, who will rule over the Kingdom on earth in the New Age, is only a vassal-servant of the Supreme King, functioning as His representative among the people. This royal theology is present in many of the canonical Psalms that we have studied, and it informs much of the Messianic thought among Jews and early Christians as well.

Psalm 18 (of Solomon)

The 18th Psalm (of Solomon), the last of the collection, is also a Messianic Psalm, though considerably shorter and narrower in scope than the 17th. In many ways, it summarizes the Messianic expectation and eschatological hope expressed in the other Psalms. The superscription designates it as a Psalm “yet (again) of the Anointed Lord” (e&ti tou= xristou= kuri/ou). It opens, much like Ps Sol 17, with a hymn to YHWH (vv. 1-4), followed by a prayer (v. 5), and a blessing for those who will be born during the coming Messianic Age (vv. 6-9, cf. 17:44, above). The Psalm closes with a hymnic benediction (vv. 10-12), in which the expected faithfulness of God’s people is compared (implicitly) to the obedience of the heavenly bodies.

Hymn to YHWH (vv. 1-4)
Verse 1

“Lord, your mercy (is) upon the works of your hands into the Age,
your goodness over a rich gift upon Yisrael!”

The opening hymn praises YHWH for His attributes and characteristic actions—particularly those demonstrating His faithfulness, devotion, and covenant loyalty toward His people. Like all human beings, the Israelite/Judean people are the “works of (His) hands” (viz., YHWH as Creator); but He specifically established Israel as His people, by means of a special covenant with them.

Verse 2

“Your eyes are looking upon them, and not (one) of them will be lacking;
your ears are listening to (the) need of (the) poor (offered) in hope.”

YHWH regularly shows care and attention toward His people, by looking upon them (i.e., watching, overseeing) so that their needs will be met; none of His faithful ones will be left wanting or in need (see, e.g., Ps 23:1; 34:10-11 [9-10]; 37:25). Similarly, He hears their prayer when they make a plea or request to Him in their need; this is the significance of the noun de/hsi$—viz., a request for some need, or based on a need that a person has. The righteous make such requests “in hope”, with the expectation that God will answer them. As often in the canonical Psalms, the righteous are identified with the poor; here, the attribute is more properly related to their situation in time of need.

Verse 3

“Your judgments upon all the earth (are made) with mercy,
and your love (is) upon (the) seed of Abraham, (the) sons of Yisrael.”

As the Sovereign Ruler (King and Judge) over all the universe, YHWH makes judgments upon/over the entire earth (viz., all humankind). Even in the judgments that He makes with regard to the other nations, YHWH shows kindness and mercy to them, but He demonstrates a special love toward the people of Israel. The expression “son(s) of Israel” is in apposition to “seed of Abraham”. The more difficult reading is the genitive singular ui(ou (“of a son”), referring to Abraham as a “son of Israel”, lit. “(the) seed of Abraham, a son of Israel”. However, other manuscripts have an accusative plural (ui(ou/$) which is more fitting to the context of the verse—viz., the “sons of Israel” are designated as the “seed of Abraham” (i.e., Abraham’s descendants); cf. Wright, p. 202. The reference to Abraham serves as an implicit allusion to the covenant between YHWH and Israel (established initially with Abraham).

Verse 4

“Your child-training upon us (is) as a firstborn (son), an only (child),
to turn a hearing soul away from lack of learning in lack of knowledge.”

YHWH’s love for His people is like that of a father for an only son (monogenh/$), who would also be, of course, his firstborn. On the idea of the Israelite people as God’s son (or children), cf. Exod 4:22-23; Deut 32:6, 19; Hos 1:10 [2:1]; 11:1; Isa 43:6; 64:8[7]; Jer 31:9. The concept came to be applied to believers in Christ, quite apart from any ethnic distinction, especially by Paul (e.g., Gal 3:26; 4:5-6; Rom 8:14-15, 19, 23) and in the Johannine writings (where te/kna, “offspring, children” is always used, Jn 1:12; 11:52; 1 Jn 3:1-2, 10; 5:2). As a loving parent, YHWH trains His child, expressed by the customary noun paidei/a; such training includes instruction and discipline, which is necessary in order to keep the child from being without proper learning (a)maqi/a) and, as a result, acting with ignorance (lit. “lack of knowledge”, a&gnoia). The idea of God disciplining His people, as a parent does to his/her child, appears frequently in Scripture—e.g., Deut 8:5; 2 Sam 7:14; Job 5:17; Ps 94:12; 118:18; Prov 3:11; Jer 31:18; Heb 12:5-11; Rev 3:19.

It is the “hearing” (i.e., obedient) soul that responds to discipline, and thus receives proper training; some manuscripts read u(phkoon (“hearing under [obedience]”) and others eu)hkoon (“good/well hearing”), but the meaning is essentially the same (cf. Wright, p. 204).

Prayer (vv. 5)

“May God cleanse Yisrael for (the) day of mercy with a good account [i.e., blessing],
for (the) day gathered out [i.e., chosen], with (the) ruling of His Anointed!”

The prayer here in v. 5, as in Ps Sol 17 (vv. 21ff), anticipates the coming of the Messiah, which will usher in the New Age of Israel’s restoration. The psalmist specifically asks YHWH to cleanse His people (Israel) in preparation for that day, a day expected to come very soon. It is with a “good account” (or word spoken, eu)logi/a), i.e., blessing, that God will bring about this cleansing (cf. John 15:3). The day when Messiah comes is a day specially chosen by God, “gathered out” from all others.

Blessing for the Messianic Age (vv. 6-9)
Verse 6

“Happy (are) the (one)s coming to be (born) in those days—
to see the good (thing)s of (the) Lord that He will do for the coming generation,”

This section begins with a beatitude formula that closely resembles the one in 17:44 (see above).

Verse 7

“under (the) rod of (the) Anointed Lord’s child-training—
in (the) fear of his God,
in (the) wisdom of (the) Spirit,
and of righteousness and strength—”

The blessings that YHWH will provide for His people during the New Age will occur under the leadership and rule of the Messiah. As God’s representative (and vassal-servant), it is the Messiah who will carry out the training of the people (as God’s children); again, the noun and motif of paidei/a (“child-training”) is used (cf. verse 4, above).

The Messiah will be faithful and devoted to YHWH, as indicated by the expression “in (the) fear of his God” (i.e., fear of YHWH), cf. 17:40. For the attributes of wisdom, righteous, and strength, cf. the Messianic Song of Ps Sol 17 (vv. 22ff, 26ff, 28, 32ff, 36-40). The wording here, as at several points in Ps Sol 17, is inspired by Isa 11:2-4ff (regarded as a Messianic prophecy by Jews and early Christians alike).

Verse 8

“to set men straight in works of righteousness, in (the) fear of God,
to make them all stand (straight) in (the) sight of the Lord—”

The discipline that the Messiah provides for God’s people will ensure that they can remain on a “straight path” (vb “set/put down straight”, kateuqu/nw), and that they will be able to stand (vb “set down”, so as to be stationed in place, kaqi/sthmi) before God, in His sight. I have followed the reading e)nw/pion (“in the eyes/sight of”), though other manuscripts repeat e)n fw/bw| (“in fear [of]”) from the first line rather than e)nw/pion; cf. Wright, p. 206. As a holy and righteous people, the restored Israel of the New Age will all produce “works of righteousness”, i.e., their actions will be right and holy.

Verse 9

“a good generation in (the) fear of God in (the) days of mercy!”
Interlude [dia/yalma]

The coming of the Messiah will be a “day [sing.] of mercy” (v. 5), but the period of his reign—viz., the New Age of the Kingdom—will constitute “days [plur.] of mercy”. All of the people born during this period will themselves constitute a “good generation” —the noun genea/ (translated “generation”) denoting the people who “come to be (born)” during a certain period of time (cf. verse 6; 17:44). They will be good and righteous, fearing and serving God with faithfulness and devotion, just like their leader the Messiah (v. 7; 17:40).

For the indicator dia/yalma, comparable to Hebrew hl*s# (Selah), cf. on 17:29 (in Part 2 of this study).

Closing Benediction (vv. 10-12)
Verse 10

“Great (is) our God and (to be held) in honor,
putting down house in (the) highest (place)s—
the (One) arranging throughout (the) lights in (their) passage,
for times of (the) hours from days to days;
and they have not stepped aside from (the) path that He ordered for them!”

The closing benediction of the Psalm takes the form of a hymn to YHWH, praising His power and faithfulness in His role as Creator (and King) of the universe. As King, He dwells in the highest places (above the heavens), from where He governs and orders all things in the cosmos. The focus is upon the heavenly bodies (lights/luminaries, fwsth/r plur.)—i.e., the sun, moon, and stars of the heavens. He arranges and sets them all in order (vb diata/ssw), so that they move and appear in a regular manner, each body having a particular mode of movement (porei/a), and a passageway or ‘course’ through which they move; cf. Judg 5:20; Psalm 19:6-7 [5-6]. As a result, human beings can utilize them reliably as a way to track the hours of the day and the days of the months and years. Subservient to the King (and His power/authority), the heavenly bodies continue to move just as they were ordered (vb e)nte/llw, denoting a charge or duty placed on someone). The bodies have continuously maintained their course and have not once “stepped alongside” away from their directed path; cf. Gen 1:16; Psalm 8:4[3]; 136:9; 147:4; 148:3ff, and on the fixed boundaries that the created bodies cannot cross, cf. Psalm 74:17; 104:9.

Verse 11

“In (the) fear of God their path (is), according to each day,
from which day God founded them, even until (the) Age.”

This couplet reaffirms the theological-cosmological point made in v. 10 (see above), emphasizing that the heavenly bodies are obedient to God’s command (“in [the] fear of God”), just like the Messiah and the holy/faithful ones of His people. In this regard, the behavior of the heavenly bodies serves as a type-parallel for the “holy ones” on earth. God established them (at the creation), just as He established His people for the New Age (making them holy and guiding/training them in righteousness). The heavenly bodies are obedient servants of God throughout the former Age (and into the New); like the heavenly beings (i.e., angels), they are the faithful residents of heaven, while human beings (i.e., God’s people) are the faithful ones on earth.

Verse 12

“And (so) they have not gone astray
from (the) day He founded them,
from (the) generations (of the) beginning
they have not stood away from their paths,
if not (as) God gave the charge to them
by (the) order of His servants!”

The use of the heavenly bodies as an exemplar for human beings (i.e., God’s people) becomes clearer with the use of the verb plana/w (“go astray”), as also by the reference to “generations” past (the same noun, genea/, occurs in vv. 6 and 9, referring to the holy/faithful generation of the Messianic Age). The repeated emphasis on the heavenly bodies remaining in/on their right paths naturally brings to mind the path/walking motif familiar from Wisdom literature, including in the Psalms (see esp. throughout Psalm 119). The obedient servant of YHWH follows the path that He has laid out.

The final two lines point out that the only time that the heavenly bodies depart from their ordained path is when God specifically commands it. The last line is almost certainly an allusion to Josh 10:12-14 (cf. also, possibly, Isa 38:8).

*    *    *    *    *

This brings to a close our series exploring selected deuterocanonical and extra-canonical Psalms. Beginning with our next study, we will return to the canonical Scriptures, looking at some of the compositions that may be regarded as among the oldest Psalms (insofar as it can be determined), both within and outside of the Psalter.

    • References above marked “Wright” are to Robert B. Wright, The Psalms of Solomon: A Critical Edition of the Greek Text, Jewish and Christian Texts in Contexts and Related Studies, vol. 1 (T & T Clark: 2007). Those marked “Wright OTP” are to the same author’s annotated translation (with introduction) in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha [OTP], Volume 2, ed. James H. Charlesworth, Anchor Bible Reference Library [ABRL] (1985), pp. 639-70.

Sunday Psalm Studies: Psalms of Solomon 17-18 (Part 2)

Psalm 17 (of Solomon), continued

The first portions of the 17th Psalm of Solomon were discussed in Part 1 of this study: (1) the Hymn to YHWH, vv. 1-10, and (2) the transitional/expository verses 11-20. They describe the present time of distress for God’s people and anticipate the coming of the appointed servant (i.e., the royal/Davidic Messiah) who will rescue the righteous/faithful ones and establish God’s Kingdom on earth. This eschatological scenario is expounded in detail in vv. 21-44, which comprise a Messianic Song, in two main stanzas (vv. 26-34a, 34b-42), with an introduction (vv. 21-25) and conclusion (vv. 43-44).

Messianic Song: Introduction (vv. 21-25)
Verse 21

“See, O Lord, and raise up for them
their King, (the) son of David—
at the time which you (have) seen, O God,
to reign as king over Yisrael your servant!”

The Messianic Song begins with a call to YHWH, making this Song function as a prayer-Psalm. The author/protagonist asks God to cause the royal/Davidic Messiah (“son of David”) to “stand up” (i.e., rise up) and appear on the scene. As a descendent of David, this person will be heir to the promises made by YHWH to David (cf. verse 4). Since the end of the Davidic dynasty, other rulers (such as the Hasmoneans) have reigned as imposters over the people; the throne of the Kingdom does not properly belong to them, but only to a rightful ruler from David’s line (v. 6).

On the designation “son of David” and its Messianic significance in the New Testament and among early Christians (as applied to the person of Jesus Christ), see Part 8 of the series “Yeshua the Anointed”.

Verses 22-24

“Gird him underneath (with the) strength—
to break apart (the) unrighteous rulers;
to cleanse Yerušalaim from (the) nations
trampling (her) down in destruction;
in wisdom (and) in righteousness
to thrust out sinners from (the) inheritance;
to rub out (the) overweening (pride) of (the) sinner
as (if it were) a potter’s vessel;
with a rod of iron
to grind together their substance;
to destroy (the) lawbreaking nations
with (the) word of his mouth!”

The psalmist also asks YHWH to give strength (i)sxu/$) to the Davidic Messiah so that he will be able to accomplish his end-time mission. The verb used is u(pozw/nnumi (“gird under[neath], undergird”), alluding to the girding of one’s loins (for battle). The phrasing comes from Psalm 18:33[32]— “The Mighty (One is) the (One) girding me (with) strength” —even though the actual wording in the LXX differs slightly, using perizw/nnumi (“gird around”) and du/nami$ (“power”): “God (is) the (One) girding me round about (with) power”.

The purpose for this strengthening by YHWH—viz., the accomplishment of the Messiah’s mission—is expressed by a series of clausal statements government by verbal infinitives (that is, infinitives of purpose/result):

    • “to break apart [vb qrau/w] the unrighteous rulers”
    • “to cleanse [vb kaqari/zw] Jerusalem…” (reading kaqari/sai rather than the imperative kaqa/rison; cf. Wright, p. 188)
    • “to thrust out [vb e)cwqe/w] the sinners…”
    • “to rub out [vb e)ktri/bw] the pride/arrogance of the sinner”
    • “to grind [lit. rub] together [vb suntri/bw] their substance”
    • “to destroy [vb o)leqreu/w] the nations…”

The lines in vv. 23b-24a have a chiastic structure that is clearly drawn from Psalm 2:9:

    • to rub out (the) overweening (pride) of (the) sinner
      • as (if it were) a potter’s vessel;
      • with a rod of iron
    • to grind together their substance;

The chiasm is bracketed by the verbal infinitives of the related verbs e)ktri/bw (“rub out”, i.e., wipe out, destroy) and suntri/bw (“rub together”, i.e., “grind together”, crush, pulverize). In the LXX the verb suntri/bw is used to translate Hebrew Jp^n` (I), “smash to pieces”, but the verb in the first line of v. 9 is misread as hu*r* (“shepherd”, Grk poimane/w) rather than uu^r* (II) “smash, shatter”. The Greek of the Pss Sol here more accurately reflects the Hebrew of Ps 2:9.

In verse 24, the allusion to Ps 2:9 is blended with that of Isaiah 11:4, as the “rod of iron” wielded by the Davidic ruler becomes the “rod of his mouth”, with which he slays the wicked. Here the Pss Sol agrees with the LXX in rendering Hebrew fb#v# (“rod, staff”) with lo/go$ (“word”). Psalm 2 and Isaiah 11:1ff both came to be viewed as Messianic prophecies, which early Christians also applied to the person of Jesus Christ—cf. the use of Ps 2:9 in Rev 2:27; 12:5; 19:15, and Isa 11:4 in 2 Thess 2:8. The prophecies allude to the idea that the royal/Davidic Messiah will play a central role in ushering in God’s end-time Judgment upon the nations (and the wicked).

Verse 25

“With his threatening (appearance the) nations (are) to flee from his face,
and (he is) to show sinners (guilty) by (the) word of their hearts!”

The Messiah’s appearing is thought to be in a threatening manner (a)peilh/, “threat”) so that the nations will flee in fear. The sinful/wicked ones will realize their guilt and understand the punishment that is coming upon them. The Messiah’s presence will have the effect of showing sinners to be guilty (vb e)le/gxw). Cf. John 16:8-11; indeed, the Gospel of John expresses the idea that the world will be judged based on how it responds to Jesus (the Messiah) while he is present—whether personally (incarnate on earth), or manifest through the presence of the Spirit (cf. also 3:19; 5:22ff; 9:39; 12:31, 47-48).

There is a clear parallel between the expression “by the word of his mouth” (v. 24) and “by the word of their hearts” (v. 25).

Messianic Song: First Stanza (vv. 26-34a)
Verse 26

“And he will gather together a holy people
whom he will lead forth in righteousness;
and he will judge (the) tribes of (the) people
made holy under [i.e., by] (the) Lord his God.”

The wicked will be slain and punished in the Judgment (vv. 23-25); this applies both to the nations and to the wicked/sinful ones among the Israelite/Jewish people. By contrast, those who are righteous and faithful will be kept safe and gathered together (vb suna/gw) as a “holy people”. These people will be led by the Davidic Messiah as their ruler (king and judge). It is God, not the Messiah, who sanctifies the people and makes them holy; once purified, they can be governed by the Messiah in righteousness. It is likely that the community of the Psalms (of Solomon), much like the Qumran Community, viewed themselves as representing the holy ones of the end times; if not exclusively so, they certainly would have identified themselves prominently as belonging to this “holy people”. This sense of religious self-identity, with a strong eschatological orientation, was very much shared by the early Christian communities as well.

Verses 27-28

“And he will not allow unrighteousness to lodge in their midst any more,
and he will not let dwell with them any man knowing evil.
For he shall know them, that all of them are sons of God,
and he will apportion them in their tribes upon the land,
and (the one) dwelling along and (the) foreigner shall not dwell alongside them any more.”

This poetic unit is framed by the idea that unrighteousness will no longer (ou) + e&ti) dwell in the midst of the holy people (v. 6). This includes foreigners and temporary residents (i.e., resident aliens, etc.)—anyone who does not truly and properly belong to the holy people (viz., the holy ones among the twelve tribes of Israel). At the center of these five lines is the declaration that the Messianic Ruler will know who the holy people are—the ones who truly are the “sons of God”. For a similar relationship between believers in Christ (as the sons/children of God) and the Messiah (Christ), cf. Jn 1:12; 11:52; 1 Jn 3:1, 10; 5:2; Rom 8:14, 16, 19; 9:8; Gal 3:26; Phil 2:15. And, for Christ knowing who the true believers (i.e., sons of God) are, cf. Jn 5:42; 6:64; 8:37f, 55; 10:14ff, 27; 13:11, 18; 14:7ff; 15:21; 16:3; cf. also Matt 7:23.

Verses 29-30a

“He will judge (the) peoples and nations in (the) wisdom of his righteousness,
Interlude [dia/yalma]
and he will hold (the) peoples of (the) nations (as) slaves to him under his yoke.”

The idea that the Messiah will rule and judge people in/with right(eous)ness (dikaiosu/nh) reflects the right(eous) character of God Himself as King and Judge (Psalm 50:6; 96:13; 98:9; Isa 51:5, etc.). The wording here is probably inspired by Isa 11:4 (see on v. 24 above), with Isa 11:1-9 again being treated as a Messianic prophecy. In early Christian thought, Jesus Christ was also expected to judge the world/nations “in righteousness” at the end-time (Acts 17:31).

The Greek term dia/yalma means something like “(partway) through (the) musical composition”, indicating a pause or musical interlude. It corresponds to the Hebrew hl*s# (Selah), and its inclusion here is probably done in imitation of the canonical Psalms; it does not seem particularly integral to the stanza or to the Song as a whole. In fact, one could treat v. 29 and v. 30a together as a poetic unit, as I have done above.

Verses 30b-31

“And he will glorify the Lord in a (most) distinguished place of all the earth,
and (so) he shall cleanse Yerušalaim in holiness as from (the) beginning,
(for the) coming of (the) nations from (the) end(s) of the earth to see His glory,
bearing (as) gifts her sons (that) had been thrust out,
and to see the glory of (the) Lord (with) which God glorified her.”

The restoration of the Kingdom in the New Age entails the cleansing and sanctification of Jerusalem as the holy city (and capital of the Kingdom), restoring it to the status that it had earlier times, and even giving to it a greater glory.

The Messiah’s rule over the nations involves their coming to Jerusalem, for two purposes: (1) returning the exiled Israelites/Judeans to the holy land, and (2) paying homage to the King (Messiah) and giving worship to YHWH. In this regard, the poet of the Song is drawing upon eschatological prophecies (dealing with the post-exilic period and the restoration of Israel) such as Isaiah 2:2-4 par, and chap. 60; cf. also the Psalms in the collection of 93-100. It is clear that the people of the nations have not all been destroyed in the Judgment; a number of them survived or were spared, and it is understood that they will join with Israel in worshiping YHWH and submitting to the rule of the King Messiah.

Verse 32

“And he (will be) a righteous king over them, taught by God,
and there will not be (any) unrighteousness in his days in the midst of them;
for (they) all (shall be) holy, and their king (the) Anointed Lord.”

In the New Age of Israel’s restoration, both the King (Messiah) and the people will be righteous and holy (cf. Jer 23:5). Here, the Davidic Ruler is specifically called by the title “(the) Anointed” (xristo/$), juxtaposed with the title “Lord” (ku/rio$). This joining of titles was similarly applied to the person of Jesus by early Christians (Luke 2:11; Acts 2:36; Rom 1:4, et al.).

Verses 33-34a

“He will not place (his) trust upon horse and rider and bow,
nor will he multiply unto him(self) gold and silver for war,
and in many (warriors) he will not gather hope for a day of war.
(The) Lord Himself is his King—
the hope of the (one) powerful in hope of God!”

The Messiah, though understood as the ruler of a real (socio-political) kingdom on earth, does not exercise power in reliance on ordinary political or military means. This reflects an important theological emphasis in the canonical Psalms—e.g., 20:8[7]; 33:17; 44:7[6]; 147:10f; cf. Isa 31:1; 36:9; Prov 21:31.

In accordance with the ancient Israelite royal theology, the human king is a vassal-servant of YHWH (the Supreme King), who gives strength and protection to His loyal servant in time of need (in battle, etc.). Since the Messiah trusts (i.e., has his hope) in YHWH as his King, he becomes powerful because of this hope, since he has YHWH’s strength on his side.

Messianic Song: Second Stanza (vv. 34b-42)
Verses 34b-35

“And he will have mercy on the nations (who stand) in fear in his sight;
for he will strike (the) earth with the word of his mouth into the Age,
(and) will bless (the) people of (the) Lord in wisdom with a good heart!”

The first stanza essentially described the Messiah’s establishment of his rule in the Kingdom of the New Age; now, in the second stanza, more detail is given to the rule itself—that is, the government of the Messianic Kingdom.

As long as the remaining people of the nations revere YHWH and submit to him (lit., are “in fear in his sight”), the Messiah will show mercy (and favor) to them. Verse 35a essentially declares that the ruling power which the Messiah displayed in the great Judgment (v. 24, citing Isa 11:4) will continue throughout the New Age (“into the Age”). The description of striking the earth “with the word of his mouth” alludes again to Isa 11:4 (LXX).

The mercy/favor shown to the nations (i.e., the devout/faithful ones) is paralleled by the blessing that he speaks (vb. eu)loge/w) to God’s people (viz., the faithful ones of Israel/Judah).

Verse 36

“And he (himself will be) clean from sin,
(in order) to rule a great people;
he will show rulers (when they are wrong) and will take out sinners
by (the) strength of his word.”

The holiness and righteousness of the Messiah is expressed here in v. 36a in terms of being clean (i.e., pure) from sin; God has made him to be so in order to “rule a great people”. The parallels with the orthodox view of the sinlessness of Jesus Christ are obvious (cf. 2 Cor 5:21; Heb 4:15; 7:26; 1 Pet 2:22; 1 John 3:5).

Verse 36b represents an expository development of the statement in v. 35b (with its allusion to Isa 11:4). The Messiah’s striking of the earth with “the word of his mouth” involves: (1) the judgment and rebuke of people (even of chiefs and rulers), showing them when they are wrong (vb e)le/gxw, cf. verse 25); and (2) the punishment of sinners, which means the removal of them (vb e)cai/rw, “take out”) from the midst of the holy people.

Verses 37-38

“And he will not be without strength in his days, (relying) upon his God,
for God made him to be
powerful in work by (His) holy Spirit,
and wise in (the) counsel of understanding,
with strength and righteousness.
Indeed, (the) blessing of (the) Lord (remains) with him in strength,
and (so) he will not (ever) be without strength.”

The Divine strength mentioned in v. 22 (see above) possessed by the Messiah remains active throughout his reign (cf. v. 34a)—a point that is further developed here, alluding again to Isa 11:2ff.

Verses 37-38 comprise a distinct poetic unit, as is clear from the framing use of the double-negative idiom ou) + vb a)sqene/w, “he will not be without strength”, so as to express all the more emphatically the Messiah’s strength.

Verses 39-40

“His hope (rests) upon (the) Lord—
and (so) who is able (to prevail) against him?
Strong in his works and mighty in (the) fear of God,
(he is) shepherding the flock of (the) Lord
in trust and righteousness,
and will not allow (there) to be a lack of strength
among them in their pasture.”

As in vv. 33-34a, it is emphasized that the Messiah trusts (i.e., has his hope) in YHWH, who is the source of his strength. After the type-pattern of David (1 Sam 16:11ff; 17:20, 34ff; 2 Sam 5:2; Ps 78:71-72), the Messiah will act like a shepherd, guiding and protecting the people (as a flock). This imagery draws upon ancient Near Eastern royal symbolism, as well as the theological idea (in Israel) of YHWH as the Shepherd of His people—e.g., Psalm 23; 28:9; 80:1ff; Isa 40:11; Jer 31:10; Ezek 34:15. For the specific application of this line of tradition to the Davidic Messiah, see Micah 5:1-3 [2-4]; Jer 23:1-8; Ezek 34:23-24; and, as applied to Jesus, Matt 2:6 (citing Mic 5:1[2]); Mk 14:27 (citing Zech 13:7); cf. John 10:2ff, 11ff; Heb 13:20; 1 Pet 2:25; 5:4; Rev 7:17.

Verse 41

“In holiness he shall lead them all,
and there will not be among them (any) overweening (pride)
(for them) to exercise power against (any) among them.”

The Messiah will be holy, sanctified by God, and he will lead the people (also made holy) together in holiness. I read o(sio/thti (“holiness”, cf. Wright, p. 198), rather than the variant i)so/thti (“equality”), though the latter could certainly relate to the situation implied in lines 2-3. Indeed, society in the Messianic Kingdom of the New Age will be governed by justice and equality. All of the people will think and act in an upright and humble manner, with no u(perhfani/a—that is, an “overblown/overinflated” sense of oneself, an overweening pride/arrogance (such as characterizes the wicked/nations, v. 23). As a result, no one will exercise power against another (vb katadunasteu/w) in an oppressive manner.

Verse 42

“This (is) the good appearance of (the) king of Yisrael,
which God knew (beforehand),
(so as) to raise him up over (the) house of Yisrael
to train it as (His) child!”

In these final couplets, the person and reign of the Messiah is summarized with the characteristic of eu)pre/peia—lit., “a good appearance”, implying beauty, dignity, and honor/majesty, particularly in this royal context (cf. Psalm 50[49]:2 LXX). YHWH knew the character and nature of the Messiah beforehand and understood how he would lead and govern the people; cf. the wording in v. 21 (above): “at the time which you (have) seen [i.e., known], O God”.

The use of the verb a)ni/sthmi (“stand up”, in a transitive-causative sense, “make stand up”, i.e., “raise up”) serves as an inclusio with the earlier occurrence in v. 21 (see above), effectively framing the entire Song. The psalmist called on YHWH to raise up the Messiah, and here, at the end of the Song, he expresses the belief and expectation that this will be done—viz., that the Davidic Ruler anointed by God will soon appear to usher in the New Age of God’s Kingdom on earth.

The holy people (v. 32) of the New Age are called “sons of God” (v. 27), and so they are to be trained and guided as God’s children. The verb paideu/w (“raise/train a child [pai=$]”) is used for this activity, in which the Messiah will play a leading role.

*    *    *    *    *

The remainder of the 17th Psalm of Solomon, along with the 18th, will be discussed in the concluding Part 3 of this study.

    • References above marked “Wright” are to Robert B. Wright, The Psalms of Solomon: A Critical Edition of the Greek Text, Jewish and Christian Texts in Contexts and Related Studies, vol. 1 (T & T Clark: 2007). Those marked “Wright OTP” are to the same author’s annotated translation (with introduction) in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha [OTP], Volume 2, ed. James H. Charlesworth, Anchor Bible Reference Library [ABRL] (1985), pp. 639-70.