PS 24:7–10: MYTHOLOGY AND EXEGESIS*

ALAN COOPER McMaster University, Hamilton, ONT, Canada L8S 4K1

That the Bible contains fragments or reminiscences of ancient myths which have been incorporated into the Israelite tradition is widely recognized. The study of Akkadian and, more recently, Ugaritic literature has given considerable impetus to the search for the mythological substratum in biblical literature. Ps 24:7–10 has recently received close scrutiny in this connection and the attempts to recover the mythological dimension of those verses have been successful to some degree. This paper reinvestigates the mythological imagery of the psalm. Such discussion will lead to a brief consideration of the role of mythologization in the creation of scripture. In an appendix, some of the principal mythological themes which reappear in early Christian interpretations of Psalm 24 will be examined.

The history of the interpretation of Ps 24:7–10 has pursued three basic lines: historical, cultic, and mythological.1 Those three levels of p 38 meaning are naturally not exclusive of one another. The problem is compounded by the present form of Psalm 24, which might be either a unified work,2 or a composite of two3 or three4 entities. Whether the poem was composed at one sitting or not, the larger context of the psalm imposes its interpretation on vv 7–10 at some point.5 This matter, however, may be distinguished from the study of the imagery of those four verses in isolation.

According to historical interpretations of Psalm 24, vv 7–10 depict a procession attendant upon some great event in Israel’s history. For many commentators, 2 Samuel 6 describes just such an occasion: the triumphal entry of the ark into Jerusalem (vv 12–19).6 Others have hypothesized that the event commemorated by the psalm would have been the placement of the ark in Solomon’s temple,7 the restoration of the temple during the p 39 reign of Zerubbabel,8 the rededication of the temple by the Maccabees,9 or the victorious return of the ark in the company of the Israelite army from some unspecified battle.10 Virtually all the historical interpretations presume that the psalm was either retained in commemoration of the event that gave rise to its creation or was incorporated into the liturgy of one festival or another.11

The cultic interpretations of the psalm seek a suitable cultic setting (Sitz im Leben) for it.12 S. Mowinckel finds it in the enthronement festival,13 and others have pointed to the new year,14 a festival of epiphany,15 a dedication festival,16 an equinox celebration,17 or some unnamed ritual procession of the ark.18

Finally, the mythological interpretations are of two types. First, eschatological interpretations view the psalm as a depiction of the messianic age.19 The second view finds the source of the imagery in p 40 pre-Israelite mythology, especially in Canaanite myths about high gods and warrior gods.20

The psalm’s elusive imagery has engendered a diversity of interpretations. Two basic questions lie at the heart of the matter: (1) What are the gates mentioned in vv 7 and 9? (2) What is the function of the dialogue of question and response in vv 8 and 10? Most other exegetical details are derived more or less logically from the answers to those questions.

The general assumption of modern scholars about the identity of the gates (šĕ‘ārîm) has been that they are some actual gates which were found in Jerusalem—either the Jebusite city gates,21 the entrance to the tabernacle (2 Sam 6:17),22 or the temple gates.23 In the Hebrew term which is parallel to “gates”—pitḥê ‘ôlām,24 typically translated “eternal doors,” or “everlasting doors”—‘ôlām is usually taken to denote the antiquity of the Jebusite city gates, or the durability or venerability of the temple entryway.25

Those commentators who view the gates of Psalm 24 as real are hard-pressed to explain what it means for them to “raise up” (nś’), since that is not how gates in the ancient Near East were opened.26 It will p 41 hardly do to assert that the psalm depicts an actual festival procession of the ark through a city or temple gateway, and then to claim that the raising up of the gates is merely symbolic or metaphorical.

According to Kraus, for example, v 7 describes the arrival of a ceremonial procession of the ark at the entrance to the holy precinct or the temple. But “welche konkrete Anschauung man allerdings mit dem Wort rā’šêkem verbinden könnte, ist nicht zu ermitteln.” He suggests, therefore, that the pitḥê ‘ôlām might be the “Tore des Himmels,” explaining that “irdisches und himmlisches Heiligtum werden in der altorientalischen Kultschau stets zusammengesehen.”27

Such exegesis is obviously contrived. Like virtually all of the cultic and historical interpretations, it rests on an a priori assumption: that the psalm depicts a procession with the ark. The psalm, however, provides no evidence for this widely accepted assumption. There is not the slightest textual support for linking Psalm 24 to any known cultic ceremony or to any event described in

the historical books. The rabbinic tradition which relates the psalm to Solomon’s efforts to open the door of the Holy of Holies in order to install the ark28 is no more or less fanciful than modern attempts to relate the text to the events of 2 Samuel 6. It must be emphasized that the ark, which figures so prominently in 2 Samuel, is never mentioned in the psalm; nor is there any evidence that the ark was ever employed in cultic processions.29

It might be more rewarding to interpret the verses without unprovable preconceptions about Israel’s history and cult,30 and to seek the p

42 meaning of the psalm through a close study of its imagery. In particular, careful attention to the term pitḥê ‘ôlām suggests a new direction for the exegesis of the psalm.

In a study of the Ugaritic divine epithet mlk ‘lm, “King of Eternity,”31 I have argued that the term ‘lm reflects the two principal Egyptian terms for “eternity,” ḏ.t and nḥḥ. What is especially remarkable about the Egyptian words is that they refer to eternity in two senses: temporal and spatial. While they both indicate tremendous antiquity or durability, they also denote the eternal abode of the dead—the netherworld. When Osiris is called ḥḳ3 ḏ.t or nb nḥḥ, “Lord of Eternity” (= Canaanite mlk ‘lm), he is being extolled at once as lord of time and as the king of the netherworld.

It is logical that the two senses of “eternity” should converge on death, the one aspect of human existence which was regarded as endless. The widely attested idiom bêt ‘ôlām, “grave,”32 clearly reflects the perception of death as eternal, in other words, the association of the concrete notions of death and the netherworld with the abstract idea of endless time.

In Egypt, the netherworld is entered through a series of gates which are called the “gates/portals of ḏ.t.”33 Since I have shown that Canaanite ‘lm (= Hebrew ‘ôlām) is the equivalent of Egyptian ḏ.t, it seems reasonable to claim that the pitḥê ‘ôlām of Psalm 24 are, in fact, identical to the gates of ḏ.t. The concrete sense of ‘lm is, then, to be found in the term pitḥê ‘ôlām, and the “gates of eternity” are none other than the p 43 gates of the netherworld.34

I would suggest that Ps 24:7–10 is a fragment or remnant of a descent myth—a myth in which a high god, forsaking his ordinary domain, descends to the netherworld, where he must confront the demonic forces of the infernal realm.35 The fragment, because of its brevity, admits of two interpretations. According to the first, the verses describe God’s entry into the netherworld to combat the might of death. The second possibility is that the text describes the Lord’s victorious emergence from the netherworld where he has subdued that fiendish power. In a sense, even this latter interpretation describes a divine

entry, since God’s return from the netherworld would be marked by his entry into his sanctuary.36

The scenario of the divine entry into the netherworld is as follows: The gatekeepers of the netherworld are summoned to open the gates. In the command, “Raise up, O gates, your heads”, the poet uses metonymy, addressing the divine doormen with an apostrophe to the gates themselves. The admonition to the gates/gatekeepers to “raise up,” if it is taken literally (but cf. below), reflects their orientation toward the world p 44 above. The gatekeepers do not grant entry freely; twice they challenge the interloper to present his credentials, which he does—each time in different terms. Here the fragment ends.

The characters remain the same when Ps 24:7–10 is read as a depiction of God’s emergence from the netherworld. The Lord commands the infernal gates, which had presumably been barred after his entry (cf. Jonah 2:7) to reopen for his exit. So, too, each morning the gates must be opened to allow the sun to reenter the world after its nightly sojourn below.37 In mythological terms, the gates of the netherworld are effectively the gates of the sanctuary, since the sanctuary is the point of contact between heaven and hell.38 Hence, the opening of the netherworld gates for God’s departure also marks his entry into his sanctuary. The gatekeepers seek to determine the identity of the conquering deity; the p 45 answer comes in the form of divine epithets which extol the Lord’s military prowess.39

Either of these interpretations reflects an unforced reading of the text, based on the single assertion that the pitḥê ‘ôlām are the gates of the netherworld. The association of these verses with a descent myth is an admittedly radical attempt to make sense out of a text which has, in my view, thus far resisted interpretation. Fortunately, both biblical and Near Eastern material may be drawn upon to illuminate the content of Ps 24:7–10.

The command addressed to the gates/gatekeepers, śĕ’û … rā’šêkem, literally “lift up your heads,” has a close parallel in the Egyptian Coffin Texts (first quarter of the second millennium), Spell #312.40 The spell describes the journey of a messenger of Horus (i.e., the deceased) into the netherworld where he will meet Osiris. The messenger obtains a royal wigcover which will guarantee his passage and prevent the infernal demons from harming him: “The gods of the netherworld fear you, the gates beware of you.” The messenger, equipped with passport, demands the right to pass through the netherworld gates:

Horus has commanded: “Lift up your faces [f3y ḥr.tn] and look at him.… Get out of the way, you wardens of your gates, for him in front of me; clear the way for him. Let him pass by, O you who dwell in your caverns, wardens of the House of Osiris.” ’

This Egyptian text provides the occasion for a discussion of the biblical idiom nś’ r’š. The idiom occurs in two forms, reflexive (one lifts up one’s own head) and transitive (one raises someone else’s head). While the transitive expression is of some interest in itself,41 it is the reflexive form that is relevant to Ps 24:7, 9. Egyptian f3y ḥr, “to raise the face,” can mean simply “to look,”42 but, like Hebrew nś’ r’š, it may also be p 46 represented by the English idiom “to rear the head,” which connotes a proud show of independence.43 This nuance of nś’ r’š is clear in Judg 8:28: “So Midian was subdued before the Israelites, and they did not again rear their heads [wĕlō’ yāsĕpû lāśē’t rō’šām].” That is to say, they never again asserted their independence.44 Similarly, Zech 2:4: “these are the horns that scattered Judah, so that no man could rear his head [’îš lō’ nāśā’ rō’šô].”45 The poetic parallelism of Ps 83:3 makes the sense of nś’ r’š quite plain: “Lo, your enemies are in an uproar [yehĕmāyûn]/Those who hate you rear their heads [nāśĕ’û rō’š].” Finally, the meaning of Job 10:15 may be clarified by the understanding of the idiom: “If I were guilty, woe unto me; If I were innocent, I could not rear my head [lō’ ’eśśā’ rō’sî]. Full of shame! Look at my affliction!”46

The idiomatic usage of nś’ r’š suggests that there is more than one level of meaning in the clause śĕ’û šĕ‘ārîm rā’šêkem. Addressed to the gatekeepers of the netherworld, the words are a call to attention: “Rear your heads, O gates!” The order demands that they stand proudly in the face of the entry of melek hakkābôd.47 This nuance of nś’ r’š corresponds to the p 47 idiomatic sense of the Egyptian expression f3y ḥr.

The interaction between the literal and idiomatic meanings48 of nś’ r’š may also be seen in the Ugaritic use of nš’ r’š in UT 137.27, 29. It is worth presenting the whole context. The gods take their places at a banquet …

Then the gods espy; They espy the messengers of Sea, The delegation of Judge River. The gods let their heads droop To their knees, And down to their princely thrones. Baal rebukes them:

Why, O gods, have you let your heads droop To your knees, And down to your princely thrones? One of the gods must answer The tablets of the messengers of Sea, The delegation of Judge River. Raise up, O gods, your heads [šu ilm raštkm] From upon your knees, From your princely thrones. I will answer the messengers of Sea, The delegation of Judge River. The gods raise their heads [tšu ilm rašthm] From upon their knees, From their princely thrones.

The gods bury their heads in their cowering fear of Sea and Baal is as furious with them as he is with his presumptuous opponent. His command, šu … raštkm, functions literally in the mythopoeic context, ordering the gods to raise their drooping heads; but it also clearly enjoins the gods to be proud and exalted in the face of their enemy. So also in Ps 24:7, 9, the poet seems to be exploiting both the literal and metaphorical senses of the idiom nś’ r’š. The literal order to “raise up” conjures up the concrete image of gatekeepers rearing their heads, while the metaphorical nuance carries the emotional charge of the command: “Stand proudly; be exalted.”

The term hinnāśĕ’û, which is parallel to śĕ’û rā’šêkem, sustains both the literal and figurative senses of the command. The Niphal of nś’ can mean “to be lifted up,” “to be high,” but it also has an extended, p 48 metaphorical sense, “to be exalted, dignified.”49 We may thus suggest the following translation of Ps 24:7:50

Rear your heads, O gates! Be exalted, O gates of the netherworld! The King of Glory would enter!51

Again, it must be emphasized that it is the gate keepers who are being addressed.

The gates of the netherworld and their keepers play a prominent role in Near Eastern mythology.52 In Egypt, the dead must pass through a series of gates which are guarded by demons in order to attain their eternal repose.53 So, for example, the end of Spell #147 of the Book of the Dead:54

To be said on arrival (at) the seven gates. It (enables) this blessed one to enter through the portals without his being turned away or kept from Osiris.… As for every blessed one for whom this is used, he shall exist yonder as lord of eternity in one body with Osiris.

In Mesopotamia, too, the gates are the defense of the netherworld against its enemies. Ishtar/Inanna’s descent to the netherworld through seven well-guarded gates hardly requires further comment here.55 The gates also figure, for example, in a vision of the netherworld56 in lexical p 49 texts57 and in magical texts.58 Part of a Babylonian incantation reads as follows:59 “Be adjured by the seven doors of the netherworld; be adjured by Nedu, chief doorkeeper of the netherworld.”60

In both Egypt and Mesopotamia, the gates typically resist encroachment. One way of doing so is through a series of questions designed to challenge the one who wishes to enter. The best-known example of such a challenge, long ago cited in connection with Psalm 24, is Book of the Dead 125.61 This lengthy spell deals with the arrival of the deceased at the “Broad Hall of the Two Truths.” After a brief introduction, the text contains a negative confession in forty-two clauses, each one addressed to one of the forty-two gods of the Broad Hall. The deceased begs the gods for their protection: “Rescue me, protect me indeed …, for I am clean of mouth and clean of hands.…”62 He implores Osiris to rescue him from the Messengers, who bring evil and punishment. The Messengers challenge the deceased: “ ‘Let him come,’ say they of me [the deceased]. ‘Who art thou?’ say they to me.…” After meeting the challenge of the Messengers, the deceased must confront the gates of the Broad Hall:

“We will not let thee enter past us,” say the jambs of this gate, “unless thou tellest our name.” Accurate Plumb Bob is thy name. “I will not let thee enter past me,” says the (right-hand) leaf of this gate, “unless thou tellest my name.” Pan for Weighing Truth is thy name. [Thus for the left-hand leaf, the floor, the bolt, and the lock. Then …] “I will not open for thee, I will not let thee enter past me,” says the doorkeeper of this gate, “unless thou tellest (my) name.” Breast of Shu, Which He Gave as Protection of Osiris is thy name. “We will not let thee enter past us,” say the rails of this gate, “unless thou tellest (our) names.” They are Brats of Cobras. “Thou knowest us, so pass by.”

Some commentators who have related the Egyptian text to Psalm 24 have used it to link vv 3–6 with vv 7–10. According to Scheil,63 anyone who would enter the temple must be righteous (vv 3–6; cf. Ps 118:19–20). As for vv 7–10,

“Les portes de Sion ont une voix et interrogent. Elles ne laissent point passer les indignes.” Scheil claims that these questions are reminiscent of those posed in Book of the Dead 125. For Galling,64 p 50 v 6 is a “Beichtspiegel,” part of an ancient cultic rite performed upon entry into the temple. “Das Unschuldsbekenntnis öffnet die Pforten des Tempels wie die der Gerichtshalle des Osiris.”

While it is admittedly attractive to use the Egyptian parallel to demonstrate the unity of Psalm 24, the case has several shortcomings. In the first place, vv 7–10 are not concerned with the worshiper’s entry through the gates but with God’s. It is not at all clear why God (whether in the “form” of the ark or otherwise) should have to stand outside his own sanctuary and endure the challenge of its gates in order to enter.65 Second, the Book of the Dead has nothing to do with admission to an earthly temple. The deceased wishes to enter the netherworld in order to become one with Osiris. The requirements for entry into the abode of the dead are not necessarily relevant to the lustration and confession purportedly required for admission into the temple. Finally, it is not the confession that enables the deceased to pass through the gates, but his knowledge of their names—despite Galling’s argument.

The value of Book of the Dead 125 for the understanding of Psalm 24 is more straightforward. The gates (and gatekeepers) of the netherworld challenge anyone who would pass through them. To be sure, in the psalm the gates seek the name of the entrant, while the deceased in the Book of the Dead must know the names of the gates themselves; but this is merely a difference in detail. In both cases, the right answer to the gatekeeper’s challenge presumably functions as a magical formula which gives the entrant power over the gate, enabling him to pass.66 The crucial point with respect to the Book of the Dead is that it fits the general pattern of the comparative material that illuminates Ps 24:7–10: it is concerned with the descent to the netherworld.

The final aspects of Ps 24:7–10 that concern us here are the literary form of the challenge and response in vv 8 and 10 and the divine epithets that appear in those verses. These will allow us to advance an hypothesis concerning the role of the descent myth in Israelite religious thought.

The passage has a three-part structure, which occurs twice as follows:

Command

7

/ / 9

Question

8aα

/ / 10aα

Response

8aβ-b

/ / 10aβ-b

In each command and question, the only epithet used is melek hakkābôd. The gatekeepers are ordered to open for him, and they ask who he is. Two fundamental issues are at stake. First, is there a god from above who can claim the right of entry into the netherworld? (Alternatively, is there a god p

51 who can demand the right of exit from below?) And if so, precisely who might it be? The answer to the first question is given in the command, which asserts the right of entry of melek hakkābôd. The purpose of the psalm is to resolve the second issue.

The phrasing of the questions, mî zeh and mî hû’ zeh, suggests first that the gatekeepers do not know the identity of the entering deity,67 and second that the identification of melek hakkābôd is not self-evident. There would be neither tension nor drama in the dialogue if melek hakkābôd were clearly and automatically understood to be an epithet of the God of Israel—in other words, if the questions were merely rhetorical.

Moreover, the nuance of the questions mî zeh and mî hû’ zeh indicates that the entering deity is not just being asked for his identity, but challenged for it, in accordance with a typical feature of descent myths. The interrogative phrases mî zeh and mi hû’, in which the demonstrative pronouns are in apposition to the interrogative pronoun, are usually regarded as emphatic or strengthened, and the rare mî hû’ zeh is considered to be even more emphatic.68 But in what sense might the question “Who?” be emphatic? In many of the biblical occurrences of these compounds, the questions they introduce imply some presumptuousness on the part of the subject, and could be translated, “Who would dare …?” or the like. In a number of instances, these emphatic interrogatives are used to challenge those who would dare to oppose God:

—Who would dare to imagine [kî mî hû’ zeh ‘ārab ’et libbô] that he could approach me, says the Lord. (Jer 30:21) —Who dares to darken counsel [mî zeh maḥšîk ’ēṣâ] with ignorant words? (Job 38:2; cf. 41:2; 42:3) —What shepherd would dare to stand before me? [mî zeh rō‘eh ’ăšer ya‘ămōd lĕpānāy] (Jer 49:19 = 50:44)

Similarly, at the climax of the book of Esther, when Esther has told Ahasuerus about the plot against the Jews, the king explodes:

—Who would dare to be so arrogant as to do this? [mî hû’zeh wĕ’ê-zeh hû’ ’ăšer mĕlā’ô libbô la’ăśôt kēn] (Est 7:5)

On the basis of these and other occurrences of the emphatic interrogative compounds,69 we might suggest that the sense of mî zeh melek p

52 hakkābôd is “Who presumes to be the King of Glory?” The response is an emphatic repetition of the divine name, each time followed by an epithet that extols the Lord’s military prowess, and thus his ability to meet any challenge: YHWH ‘izzûz wĕgibbôr/ /YHWH gibbôr milḥāmâ.

But the questioners are not satisfied, and their retort is an even more insistent question: mî hû’ zeh melek hakkābôd, in effect, “Who dares to call himself the King of Glory?” The poet has framed the question so that it subtly anticipates the form of the response. The hû’ of the second question, which seems so excessive, and which stands out because it had not appeared in the first question, is transformed into the copula of an equational statement:70 YHWH ṣĕbā’ôt hû’ melek hakkābôd. The function of this sentence, which is the climax of the psalm, is to assert that melek hakkābôd is to be identified with none other than YHWH ṣĕbā’ôt. Whatever the precise meaning of YHWH ṣĕbā’ôt might be,71 it is obviously the most potent of the epithets of YHWH—the key that will open the gates.72 But the poet is not interested in saying anything about YHWH ṣĕbā’ ôt beyond his assertion that He is melek hakkābôd; the psalmist would claim that the sentence YHWH ṣĕbā’ôt hû’ melek hakkābôd expresses a tautology.

We can assume, then, that melek hakkābôd is an epithet that has been co-opted for the God of Israel. The poetic framework of the new identification further suggests that the “other” melek hakkābôd is the hero of a descent myth, and this heroic nature, too, is being taken over for YHWH.

Now the epithet melek hakkābôd can be connected with Canaanite cultic traditions, since both kingship (melek) and majesty (kābôd) belong to the complex of religious ideas which are indigenous to pre-Israelite Syria/Canaan.73 The use of kābôd to express divine lordship over the p

53 forces of nature—the essence of the descent-battle myth—is found in Pss 19:2; 24:7–10; 29; 57:6, 12; and Isa 6:3. This usage seems almost certain to have been taken over from the traditions of the Canaanite high god. As H. L. Ginsberg has shown, Psalm 29 is a thinly veiled hymn to Baal-Haddu which extols the Canaanite deity’s glory (kābôd) and might (‘ōz) as manifest in the storm.74 The transfer of the storm theophany to the Israelite tradition enriches

the portrayal of the God of Israel through the appropriation and adaptation of Canaanite literary and mythological topoi.

Ps 24:7–10 also represents the phenomenon of the mythologization of Israelite tradition. The divine warrior who marshaled Sea and the Hosts in order to defeat the Egyptians (Exodus 15) and the Canaanites (Judges 5) is now identified with the high god who descends to the netherworld to combat the forces of death.75 The Israelite adaptation of the descent myth enhances the stature of YHWH by asserting that his hegemony over the forces of nature may be extended over the netherworld. Like Psalm 29, Ps 24:7–10 describes the kingship and majesty of YHWH in the language of Canaanite myth.

It has long been held that the ancient Israelites did not assert the dominance of YHWH over death.76 According to this view, most recently espoused by J. C. L. Gibson,77 such texts as Ps 88:10–12 support that claim. For Gibson, “passages like Amos 9:2 and Ps. 139:8ff … are not statements p 54 about death but … figurative descriptions.…” He considers poetic claims of salvation from death (e.g., Pss 16:10; 30:4; 116:8) to be mere hyperbole; the psalmist is really talking about restoration of health or rescue from danger. As for clear personifications of death, such as Isa 28:15, 18; Jer 9:20; Hab 2:5; Ps 49:15, they “must reflect in what we may call demythologised form the conception of the god of death held by [Israel’s] Canaanite neighbors.”

This view would seem to militate against any effort to discern a fragment of a descent myth in Psalm 24, but I do not think that it can be sustained. The very texts cited above indicate that there was no uniform Israelite opinion about the relationship between YHWH and death. And only because Gibson starts from the premise that YHWH has no power over death must he explain away indications to the contrary as hyperbole or demythologization.

I would prefer to see YHWH in a constant tension with Death—now overcoming or subduing him/it (e.g., Hos 13:14), now unable or unwilling to (e.g., Jer 9:20)—in accord with the existential confrontation of man with death, and analogous to the relationship between Baal and Mot in the Ugaritic texts.78 Texts that depict this tension (especially those couched in terms of battle) are the primary expression of the Israelite attitude toward death. Texts that intimate YHWH’s powerlessness over death (e.g., Ps 88:10–12) and those that express his absolute dominion over death (e.g., Isa 25:8) reflect either despair or yearning in the face of the existential truth: in this world, there is no escape from death for man or god; all are condemned to battle his rapacity until the end.

Here, then, is a free rendering of Ps 24:7–10:

Command:

Raise up your heads, O gates! Raise your heads, O netherworld gates! The King of Glory would enter!

Question:

Who presumes to be the King of Glory?

Response:

YHWH: The Mighty One, The Hero; YHWH: The Hero in Battle.

Command:

Rear your heads, O gates! Be exalted, O netherworld gates! The King of Glory would enter!

Question:

Who dares to call himself the King of Glory?

Response:

The Almighty YHWH is the King of Glory!

The earliest Israelite traditions about the nation’s military victories are preserved in mythopoeic language, but the biblical evidence does not permit us to say whether those traditions were ever incorporated into a p

55 coherent mythological structure. The mythologization of Israelite tradition consists, rather, in its incorporation of Canaanite literary patterns and motifs: the storm theophany, theomachy, cosmogony, and the like.79 The question early Israel is asking as it takes root in Canaan is not really “Who is melek hakkābôd?”, but “Who is YHWH ṣĕbā’ôt?” And that question is answered in the language of myth. The effect, whether intended or not, is to transform the Israelite God from a character in an historical drama into a timeless hero of mythology. For the community of believers, the mythologization of historical traditions transforms story into myth and creates a basis for religious faith.

APPENDIX: EARLY CHRISTIAN EXEGESIS OF PS 24:7–10

The idea that Ps 24:7–10 ought to be related to the “descent” or “ascension” portions of a descent-battle myth is hardly original. It is, in fact, a leading characteristic of early Christian exegesis of those verses.80 The early Christian community expressed the death and resurrection of Jesus in terms of the descent-battle pattern.81 The exegetical and doctrinal problem of the three-day lapse between the crucifixion and the resurrection is neatly solved if, during

those three days, Jesus descended to the netherworld, fought and vanquished the forces of darkness, rescued the righteous souls imprisoned in hell, and only then ascended gloriously to heaven. The credal statement adopted by the Council of Sirmium in a.d. 35982 reflects this pattern, and also contains a striking allusion to Job 38:17 LXX: “He was crucified and he died, and he descended to Hell, and p 56 there he ruled all things. The gatekeepers of Hell, seeing him, were terrified. After three days he was resurrected from Hell.…”

At some point, probably quite early, Ps 24:7–10 was incorporated into the mythologization of the life of Jesus. The circumstances of this appropriation are not clear, but they may have had something to do with the growth of a liturgy celebrating the descent and resurrection of Jesus.83 The events are described in full in the Descensus portion of the Gospel of Nicodemus (no later than the mid-fourth century),84 with Ps 24:7–10 used specifically for Jesus’ challenge to the gatekeepers of the netherworld.

The scene is set in Hell; Satan, who has just instigated Jesus’ crucifixion, fully expects to secure Jesus in Hell. Hades doubts that Jesus is a mere mortal because he has witnessed the power of the Word to heal the sick and make the dead live. Satan remains unconvinced, even when Hades recalls the raising of Lazarus, and expresses his fear that Jesus will now raise all the dead.

While Satan and Hades are engaged in conversation, “a loud voice like thunder sounded: ‘Lift up your gates, O rulers,85 and be lifted up, O everlasting doors, and the King of Glory shall come in.’ ” Satan goes out to bar the gates and appoints his demons as watchmen. David and Isaiah mock him, claiming that they had prophesied what is about to occur.86 The voice sounds again: “ ‘Lift up your gates.…’ ” Hades acts as if he does not recognize it: “ ‘Who is this king of glory?’ ” The angels of the Lord answer: “ ‘The Lord strong and mighty, the Lord p 57 mighty in battle.’ ” At this moment the gates and bars are crushed, and the King of Glory enters Hell in the form of a man. Satan is enchained, and Hades mocks him for his folly. Adam, the patriarchs, the prophets, and martyrs ascend to heaven following Jesus.87

In the Gospel of Nicodemus and elsewhere,88 Ps 24:7–10 is taken to be the challenge to the infernal gatekeepers to open for Jesus. When they resist, he smashes the gates and enters and defeats the powers of Hell.

The same verses are used by other commentators for the continuation of the story, Jesus’ ascent from the netherworld to heaven.89 Chapter 24 of Julius Firmicus Maternus’s De errore profanarum religionum (fourth century)90 is an

extended polemic which describes Jesus’ victory over death and ascension to p 58 heaven: “For three days the band of the righteous was mustered and assembled, so that the wickedness of Death could no longer exercise its might against them.… [Jesus] smashed the eternal bolts, and the iron gates collapsed on Christ’s command.”

After three days, Death is overcome, the sun is restored to its former radiance, and Jesus is bedecked with shining sunbeams. Then:

The saving divine spirit [salutare numen] rejoices, and his triumphal chariot accompanies the band of the righteous and holy.… The saving divine spirit hastens forth and commands the gates of heaven to open: “Open, open, and rend the immortal bolt. God Christ has stamped out death and called the men he has adopted back to heaven.” … It is the Holy Spirit which, in order to show us the might of the Commander Christ, says: “Raise up the gates for your prince, and raise yourselves, O eternal gates, and the King of Glory will enter.” [Tollite portas principis vestri,91 et extollite <vos> portae aeternae, et introibit rex gloriae.] This the angels—who had no information since they could not have known that the Word of God had descended to earth—are commanded. They respond, therefore, with an urgent question: “Who is this King of Glory?” To their question Christ responds with the radiant majesty of his divinity: “The Lord strong and mighty, the Lord mighty in battle.” Then the watchers of the heavens recognize the son of God, and they realize everything that has occurred before. They see the captured weaponry of the defeated enemy and, recalling the first command, they too cry aloud together with those who are ascending: “Raise up the gates, you who preside over the gates, and raise yourselves, O eternal gates, and the King of Glory will enter.” [Tollite portas qui praeestis illis,92 et extollite.…]

The homecoming son is enthroned in majesty (cf. Dan 7:13–14). J. Firmicus Maternus does not hesitate to offer his own exegetical

paraphrase of the biblical text. He exploits the double occurrence of the command in vv 7 and 9 at two different moments in his dramatic account, changing the sense of the command each time. While he describes the smashing of the gates of the netherworld, he does not relate Psalm 24 to that event, reserving it for the depiction of the ascension. Firmicus Maternus clearly mythologizes the life of Jesus in terms of the descent-battle, and he incorporates Ps 24:7–10 into the mythological structure.

We have now seen the use of our verses in the descent portion of the descent-battle, and their application to the ascension. We might also expect

some commentator to apply the commands of vv 7 and 9 to both movements of the myth. This is done by Gregory of Nyssa, in his treatise On the Ascension of Christ.93

Jesus descends from heaven to earth in the company of heavenly powers who “order the angels who live on earth, who are responsible for the sphere of p 59 human life, to raise their gates, saying, ‘Lift up the gates.…’ ” The earthly gatekeepers are confused by the sight of the heavenly form descending. “Because of this the gatekeepers ask those who address them, ‘Who is this King of Glory?” That is why [the heavenly powers] inform [the gatekeepers] that it is he who is strong and mighty in battle, who is going to battle with the one who has reduced mankind to servitude, to overthrow the one who has dominion over death.”

Once he has accomplished his mission and triumphed over Death, Jesus ascends to heaven. “And now it is the gates of heaven which must open for him. Our guardians proceed and ask the celestial gates to open for him, so that he might be glorified within.” So now they pose the question, “Who is this King of Glory?” The response is no longer “the one who is strong and mighty in battle,” but “ ‘the Lord of Hosts,’ he who has obtained power over all things, who has gathered all unto himself, who is first of all, who has restored everything to its initial creation, ‘He is the King of Glory.’ ”

Gregory deviates from the other descent-battle texts we have discussed in that he conflates the Descensus with the Incarnation. For Gregory, the gates below are the gates of the earth; still, the reason for Jesus’ incarnation and descent to earth is to enable him to vanquish Death. The mythological basis of the description is clear, as is the use of Ps 24:7–10 to depict both descent and ascension.

Now it would be simplistic to claim that early Christian exegesis preserves or revives the original meaning of the text. Given the widespread attestation of the descent myth among the popular mythologies of the Near East,94 it is not surprising that the pattern recurs in early Christian myth. The early Church mythologized the death and resurrection of Jesus and the descent-battle provided a suitable structure for that mythologization.95 Commentators naturally sought to elaborate the mythic framework with appropriate biblical references and biblical texts were interpreted to suit the needs of the christological mythology.

p 60 Nevertheless, it might not be too far-fetched to suggest that, in their adaptation of Ps 24:7–10, the early Christian commentators realized, even actualized, a potential which is inherent in the imagery of the psalm. In other

words, the mythological structure of Christian interpretation is fundamentally compatible with the content of the psalm. The church, no less than ancient Israel, freely uses the language of myth in its effort to comprehend and

* This paper was written during a leave of absence which was supported by a Hebrew

University Postdoctoral Fellowship. I owe a special debt of gratitude to Père Paul

Dreyfus, Professor Moshe Greenberg, and Professor Baruch Levine for their criticism

and encouragement. My thanks also to Professor Alexander Rofé and the members of

the Hebrew University Bible Circle for their kind response to an earlier (Hebrew)

version of the paper. 1 Commentaries on Psalms are referred to by the last name of the author. The

following commentaries are cited: A. A. Anderson (NCB; London: Oliphants, 1972)

1.200–206; R. Arconada (La sagrada escritura; Madrid: B.A.C., 1969) 99–103; F.

Baethgen (HKAT; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1892) 69–71; W. E. Barnes

(London: Methuen, 1931) 1.119–22; E. Beaucamp (SB; Paris: Gabalda, 1976) 119–22;

R. Bellarmin (London: H. Cardon, 1618) 128–33; C. A. and E. G. Briggs (ICC;

Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1906) 1.212–19; M. Buttenwieser (Chicago: Univ. of

Chicago, 1938) 205–10; G. R. Castellino (La sacra bibbia; Torino/Rome: Marietti,

1955) 644–49; T. K. Cheyne (London: Paul, Trench, Trübner, 1904) 1.101–4; M.

Dahood (AB; Garden City: Doubleday, 1966) 1.150–53; F. Delitzsch (4th ed.; Leipzig:

Dorffling & Franke, 1883) 243–47; B. Duhm (HKAT; Freiburg, etc.: Mohr, 1899) 75–

77; A. B. Ehrlich (Berlin: M. Poppelauer, 1905) 50–52; H. Ewald, Die Dichter des

Alten Bundes (3d ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1866) 1/2.16–18; L.

Fillion (Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1893) 120–23; H. Gunkel (4th ed.; HAT; Göttingen:

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1926) 101–5; H. Herkenne (Heilige Schriften des AT;

Bonn: Hannstein, 1936) 112–15; F. Hitzig (Leipzig/Heidelberg: Winter, 1863)1.142–

45; H. Hupfeld (2d ed., ed. J. Riehm; Gotha: F. A. Rerthes, 1868) 2.94–107; L. Jacquet

(Gembloux: Duculot, 1975) 1.566–78; E. Kissane (Dublin: Browne & Nolan, 1953)

1.106–9; R. Kittel (KAT; Leipzig: Deichert, 1914) 98–103; E. König (Gütersloh:

Bertelsmann, 1927) 187–93; H.-J. Kraus (4th ed.; BKAT; Neukirchen-Vluyn:

Neukirchener, 1972) 193–206; C. B. Michaelis (Halle: Orphanotrophel, 1730) 153–58;

F. Nötscher (Echter Bibel; Würzburg: Echter, 1947) 44–46; J. Olshausen (Kurz. Exeg.

Handkommentar zum AT; Leipzig: Hirzel, 1853) 130–32; N. Peters (Paderborn:

Bonifacius, 1930) 50–52; E. F. Rosenmüller, Scholia in vetus Testamentum (Leipzig:

Jo. A. Barthil, 1822) 4/2.666–78; L. Sabourin (Staten Island: Alba House, 1969)

2.327–30; W. Staerk (2d ed.; Die Schriften des AT; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &

Ruprecht, 1920) 3/1.12–14; J. van der Ploeg (De Boeken van het Oude Testament 7b;

Roermond: Roman & Zonen, 1971) 164–68; A. Weiser (ATD; Göttingen:

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1950) 147–50 2 See esp. V. V. Hueso, “El Salmo 24: unidad literaria y ambiente histórico,” EstBib

22 (1963) 243–53, supported by R. Tournay, review of M. Mannati and E. de Solms,

Les Psaumes, RB 75 (1965) 436; also Anderson; Arconada; V. Scheil, “Le Psaume 24

(Vulg. 23),” RB 1 (1892) 602–4. A. Condamin (“Contre le morcellement des

Psaumes,” RSR [1925] 206–10) follows Peters and others in appending Psalm 15 to

Psalm 24, thus forming a single five-strophe poem. 3 I.e., vv 1–6 + 7–10. So Beaucamp; Briggs; Buttenwieser; Cheyne; Ewald; Gunkel;

Hupfeld; Olshausen. I also accept this view; I hope to discuss the meaning of the

present form of Psalm 24 in a future article. See, tentatively, below, n. 39. 4 I.e., vv 1–2 + 3–6 + 7–10. So Castellino; Duhm; Herkenne; Jacquet; Kittel; König;

Nötscher; Rosenmüller; Staerk; van der Ploeg; Weiser. Similarly Kraus, who

nevertheless argues for the close affinity of vv 1–2 with vv 7–10, on the basis of Ps

95:2–6. 5 On this issue, see O. Loretz, “Ugarit-Texte und israelitische Religionsgeschichte,”

UF 6 (1974) 241–45. 6 So Arconada; G. Auzou, La danse devant l’arche (Paris: Editions de l’Orante, 1968)

260–61; Beaucamp; Briggs; Castellino; B. Cornet, “Les Portes de Jérusalem (Ps 24),”

Terra Sancta 4 (1968) 97–102; Delitzsch; Ewald; Fillion; Herkenne; Jacquet; Kittel;

König; R. Lowth, Lectures on the Sacred Poetry of the Hebrews (4th ed.; London:

Thomas Tegg, 1839) 301; E. Podechard, “Psaume xxiv, 7–10,” Mémorial Lagrange

(Paris: Gabalda, 1940) 143–46; Riehm (apud Hupfeld); Staerk. Scholars who consider

this one of several possibilities: Buttenwieser; Nötscher; Rosenmüller; van der Ploeg. 7 So, in general, traditional Jewish commentaries (below, n. 28). Also considered to be

a possibility by Buttenwieser; Hupfeld; Rosenmüller; van der Ploeg. 8 So Hueso, “El Salmo 24”; Tournay, review of Mannati and de Solms; J. Halévy,

“Notes pour l’interpretation des Psaumes,” Revue sémitique 2 (1894) 290–97. Cf. Hag

2:7, 9. 9 So Duhm; M. Treves, “The Date of Psalm xxiv,” VT 10 (1960) 428–34. 10 So Baethgen; Ehrlich; Hitzig; Peters; Olshausen. This is one possibility, according

to Hupfeld; Nötscher. 11 So, for example, Staerk: The psalm was composed for the events described in 2

Samuel 6, and then incorporated into a consecration festival which commemorated

those events. Similarly, Auzou, La danse; Podechard, “Psaume xxiv, 7–10.”

According to Kittel, the psalm was composed for the entry of the ark into Jerusalem

and then used in a ceremonial procession that accompanied the army’s return from

battle during the reigns of David and Solomon.

12 The earliest notice of a Sitz im Leben for the psalm is the laconic LXX

superscription which associates it with Sunday. On the use of Psalm 24 in early Jewish

liturgy, see b. Roš. Haš. 32b; t. Roš. Haš. 2.13 (ed. Lieberman); y. Roš. Haš. 4.7 (59c);

also I. W. Slotki, “The Text and the Ancient Form of Recital of Psalm 24 and Psalm

124,” JBL 51 (1932) 220–21. 13 Psalmenstudien (repr., Amsterdam: Schippers, 1961 [orig. 1921]) 2.118–20; The

Psalms in Israel’s Worship (Nashville: Abingdon, 1967) 1.169–82. Mowinckel claims

that the author of 2 Samuel 6 has based his account on the consecration festival of his

own time; Psalm 24 describes Yahweh’s royal entry into the temple. 14 Cf. Kittel; also F. M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge: Harvard

University, 1973) 94. 15 So H. Schrade, Der verborgene Gott (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1949) 50; Weiser. 16 So Auzou, La danse; Gunkel; Kraus; Podechard, “Psaume xxiv”; Staerk; also

Deissler and Oesterly (both apud van der Ploeg). 17 So J. Morgenstern, “The Gates of Righteousness,” HUCA 6 (1929) 36. 18 So Anderson; Beaucamp; Dahood; R. Schnackenburg, God’s Rule and Kingdom

(New York: Herder and Herder, 1963) 28–29; van der Ploeg. Note, too, the curious

view of Barnes (also Ehrlich) that Psalm 24 is addressed to the gentiles and proselytes

who participate in the ritual procession. 19 So traditional Christian commentary, on which see below; also Midr. Leqaḥ Tôb on

Num 24:17, which is sui generis and worthy of separate treatment. See also Abraham

Ibn Ezra ad Ps 24:9–10, and cf. further below, n. 95. More recently, see esp. J. D.

Smart, “The Eschatological Interpretation of Psalm 24,” JBL 53 (1933) 175–80, and

the additional bibliography cited there; also Kissane; A. von Gall, “Über die Herkunft

der Bezeichnung Jahwes als König” (Wellhausen Festschrift; BZAW 27; Giessen:

Töpelmann, 1914) 148. Eschatological interpretations sometimes relate Ps 24:7–10 to

Ezekiel’s temple visions (e.g., Ezek 43:4). This possible relationship merits close

study but is beyond the scope of the present paper. Note also Duhm’s claim that the

references to the warrior god in Ps 24:8 refer both to a particular historical setting and

to the final struggle of the messianic era. 20 Cheyne, in his messianic interpretation, mentions the mythological divine warrior.

But see esp. Cross, Canaanite Myth, 91–99; P. D. Miller, The Divine Warrior in Early

Israel (HSM 5; Cambridge: Harvard University, 1973) 29–30. Note also Kraus who

sees in the psalm a combination of mythological motifs drawn from high gods and

holy warriors. Weiser finds a “Nachklang” of a creation myth in the text; similarly

Sabourin. Incidentally, Ps 24:7 is related to the Lord’s going out to battle in a

midrashic treatise on the seven vowel signs; cf. J. D. Eisenstein,’Ôṣar Midrāšîm (repr.,

Israel: n.p., 1969) 2.521.

21 So Briggs; Delitzsch; Ewald; Fillion; Jacquet; König; Peters; Podechard, “Psaume

xxiv”; Riehm (apud Hupfeld). 22 So Castellino. 23 So Anderson; Barnes; Buttenwieser; Duhm; Gunkel; Halévy, “Notes”; Hitzig;

Hupfeld; Morgenstern, “Gates”; Treves, “Date of Psalm 24.” Note, too, Rosenmüller,

for whom the gates might equally well be those of the city or the temple; similarly,

Kittel, Olshausen. 24 The suggested emendations of ‘ôlām—to ’ûlām, ‘elyôn, and yĕraḥmĕ’ēl (!)—are

discussed by Cheyne (the last two are his), and need not detain us. 25 Virtually all modern scholars take ‘ôlām to be temporal (for exceptions, see Dahood;

G. Gerleman, “Die Sperrende Grenze: Die Wurzel ‘lm im Hebräischen,” ZAW 91

[1979] 338–49; Kraus; and cf. below), so the main problem is whether the eternity of

the gates projects back (“ancient”) or forward (“everlasting”). For discussion, see esp.

Lowth, Lectures, with Michaelis’s objection in the footnote; Hupfeld, with Riehm’s

objection in brackets; Rosenmüller; Castellino; E. Jenni, “Das Wort ‘ōlām im Alten

Testament,” ZAW 64 (1952) 230. 26 See Cross, Canaanite Myth, 97–98; but note also Fillion: “pour les ouvrir, on les

hissait entre des rainures pratiquées dans le portail; on les abaissait pour les

renfermer.” See also Arconada; Jacquet. Others have sought to interpret the image by

explaining that rō’s̆ is a technical term for some part of a gate or watchtower. See P.-

R. Berger, “Zu Ps 24, 7 und 9,” UF 2 (1970) 335–36; Loretz, “Ugarit-Texte,” 244, n.

4; M. Gruber, “Aspects of Non-verbal Communication in the Ancient Near East,”

Columbia University Ph.D. dissertation, 1977, 473–77. 27 On this point, see also Cross, Canaanite Myth, 92. 28 b. Šabb. 30a; Mo‘ed Qat. 9a; Exod. Rab. 8 (beg.); Num. Rab. 14.3; 15.13; Lam. Rab.

ad 2:9 (also Rashi ad loc.); Tanḥûmā’ Wā’ērā’ 8; Bĕhă‘ălôtĕkā 9; Tanḥûmā’ Buber

Wā’ērā 6 (pp. 21–22); Yal. 2.193, 698, 699. See V. Aptowitzer, “The Rewarding and

Punishing of Animals and Inanimate Objects,” HUCA 3 (1926) 154–55; Morgenstern,

“Gates,” 13–14. 29 The notion that the ark figures in Psalm 24—apparently inferred from Num 10:35

and 1 Sam 4:21—is inherited from traditional Jewish commentary. See the rabbinic

texts cited in the previous note; also medieval commentaries (Rashi, Ibn Ezra, et al.).

Early opposition to the idea comes from advocates of eschatological interpretations.

So, e.g., C. B. Michaelis: “absurdum est, quod Grotius cum Iudaeis per hunc Regem

gloriae Arcam foederis intelligit …”; more recently, see Smart, “Eschatological

Interpretation,” 175. Other scholars have discussed the lack of any evidence that the

ark was employed in cultic processions. See Anderson; D. Hillers, “Ritual Procession

of the Ark and Ps 132,” CBQ 30 (1968) 48–55; Schrade, Der verborgene Gott; Weiser.

30 Note, for example, Cross’s interpretation (Canaanite Myth, 97): “we find the Divine

Warrior recognized as the ‘glorious king,’ and the procession of the Warrior-King into

his Temple may be said to reenact the founding of the Temple (at the fall New Year)

and the choice of Zion as the shrine of the ark.” The first clause is unexceptionable but

the second is filled with unproved assumptions. In my view, Cross also forces the

parallel between śĕ’û šĕ‘arim rā’šēkem and Ugaritic šu ilm raštkm (see below); Miller

(Divine Warrior, 30) is even more arbitrary on this point. 31 “Mlk ‘lm: ‘Eternal King’ or ‘King of Eternity’?” Love and Death (Marvin H. Pope

Festschrift; ed. J. Marks and R. Good; in press). 32 Qoh 12:5; for a recent discussion, see J. Hoftijzer and G. van der Kooij, Aramaic

Texts from Deir ‘Alla (Leiden: Brill, 1976) 224–25 with n. 113. See also the important

remarks on ‘ôlām in B. Levine, “The Deir ‘Alia Plaster Inscriptions,” JAOS 101

(1981) 195–205, esp. 201, 203. Note, too, that “house of eternity” (e.g., pr (n) d.t; cf.

WAeS 1.514; 5.508) is a regular term for “tomb,” “grave” in Egyptian; see already P.

Humbert, Recherches sur les sources égyptiennes de la littérature sapientiale d’Israël

(Memoires de l’Université de Neuchatel 7; Neuchatel: Secrétariat de l’Université,

1929) 123. For other bound structures which combine the notions of death and

eternity, see mētê ‘ôlām, “the dead of eternity,” Lam 3:6; ‘am ‘ôlām, “the people of

eternity,” Ezek 26:20 (but cf. Isa 44:7); perhaps also melek ‘ôlām, “king of eternity,”

Jer 10:10, which will be the subject of a separate study. Gerleman, “Die sperrende

Grenze,” has argued that the basic meaning of ‘ôlām is not “eternity” in any sense, but

“Grenze,” “Sperre.” His semantic analysis leads him to suggest (p. 342) that in Ps

24:7, 9, “Die Pforten … sind … ‘hindernde Pforten,’ die wegen ihrer Niedrigkeit dem

‘König der Ehren’ im Wege stehen und den Eingang versperren.” See also below, n.

47. 33 On the terminology, see J. Zandee, Death as an Enemy According to Ancient

Egyptian Conceptions (Numen Sup 5; Leiden: Brill, 1960) 96–97; 114–25. 34 As far as I know, the only place in Jewish literature where the gates of Psalm 24 are

explicitly equated with the “Gates of Death” (Job 38:17) is Zōhar 1.160b (= Mišnat

Hazzōhar 1.331–32). But there are also two passages in 1QH in which ‘ôlām appears

to be used in connection with the gates of the netherworld. First, 3:17–18: “When they

step into the abyss (thwm), they make their voices heard/They open the gates of [Sheol

(š‘ry [š’wl]) for all] acts of wickedness/They close the doors of the pit (dlty šḥt) behind

the conceiver of mischief/The bars of eternity (bryḥy ‘wlm) behind all the spirits of

wickedness.” Here ‘wlm is clearly parallel to two (three if the restoration of š’wl is

correct) concrete designations of the netherworld. To be sure, the passage evokes

Jonah 2:6–7, where lĕ‘ôlām is temporal (bĕriheyhā ba‘ădî lĕ‘ôlām). But no matter

how ‘wlm is translated, in 1QH bryḥy ‘wlm connotes the bars of the netherworld. The

second text is 1QH 6:31: “He opens the fortress (mṣwr) [ ] endlessly wide/The gates of

eternity (š‘ry ‘wlm) to bring forth weapons of war.” Here the parallelism does not

clarify the sense of ‘wlm, but note 6:24–25: “The abyss (thwm) roars at my groans/My

[soul arrives] at the gates of death (š‘ry mwt) [cf. Ps 107:18])/I am as one who enters a

fortified city (‘yr mṣwr /Who is strengthened by a high wall of deliverance.” In the

latter passage, we might see an allusion to the well-known conception of the

netherworld as a city (cf. N. J. Tromp, Primitive Conceptions of Death and the

Netherworld in the Old Testament [BibOr 21; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute,

1969] 52–54). The occurrence of mṣwr in both passages suggests that š‘ry ‘wlm = š‘ry

mwt. The relationship, if any, of š‘ry ‘wlm here to the šĕ‘ārîm and pitḥê ‘ôlām of Ps

24:7, 9 is not clear. For some suggestions, see J. Licht, The Thanksgiving Scroll

(Hebrew) (Jerusalem: Bialik, 1957) 118; S. Holm-Nielsen, Hodayot: Psalms from

Qumran (Acta Theologica Danica 2; Aarhus: Universitetsvorlaget, 1960) 120, n. 163;

M. Delcor, Les hymnes de Qumran (Hodayot) (Paris: Letouzey et Ańe, 1962) 183. 35 The basic study of the descent myth is still J. Kroll, Gott und Hölle: Der Mythus

vom Descensuskampfe (Leipzig/Berlin: B. G. Teubner, 1932). The book contains a

wealth of material but the treatment of texts in Semitic languages is unfortunately

second-hand. Cf. also Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics (ed. J. Hastings;

Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1911) 4.648–63 (s.v. “Descent to Hades”); RGG (3d ed.)

3.407–11 (s.v. “Höllenfahrt”). 36 See below, with n. 38. 37 The emergence of the sun through the netherworld gates is represented on seals

collected by W. H. Ward (The Seal Cylinders of Western Asia [Washington: Carnegie

Institute of Washington, 1910] 86–95 [and note his comment on Psalm 24, p. 93]).

Shamash is depicted standing on a mountain (perhaps the É-KUR, the infernal

“mountain house”), preparing to emerge through the gates on either side of him, each

of which is tended by a gatekeeper. See KAR 32.30: “You (Shamash) open the gate of

the wide land [i.e., the netherworld],” cited in AHW 1.9a; CAD A/1.87a. 38 This is part of the conception of the sanctuary as omphalos. See A. J. Wensinck, The

Ideas of the Western Semites Concerning the Navel of the Earth (Amsterdam:

Johannes Müller, 1916) 23–27. In his words (p. 23), the sanctuary is “the place of

communication with the upper and with the nether world.… In the sanctuary the three

parts of the Universe, earth, upper and nether world, meet.” See, in general, B. S.

Childs, Myth and Reality in the Old Testament (SBT 27; 2d ed.; London: SCM, 1960)

83–93; S. Terrien, “The Omphalos Myth and Hebrew Religion,” VT 20 (1970) 315–

38. (Note, too, the reservations expressed by S. Talmon, “The ‘Navel of the Earth’ and

the Comparative Method,” Scripture in History and Theology [Rylaarsdam Festschrift;

ed. A. Merrill and T. Overholt; PTMS 17; Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1977] 243–68; “The

‘Comparative Method’ in Biblical Interpretation—Principles and Problems,” VTSup

29 [1978] 347–51.) The notion that the sanctuary stands between heaven and hell may

be correlated with the widespread tradition that the entrance to the netherworld is

located immediately outside the walled-up Golden Gate of Jerusalem, in the Wādî Jôz.

This topic is too vast for more than cursory notice here. See Enoch 26–27, with

Charles’s commentary. Note also b. ‘Erub. 19a, which places one of the three

entrances to the netherworld in Jerusalem, and the traditions about the šittîn and the

’eben šĕtîyâ. On these, see D. Feuchtwang, “Das Wasseropfer und die damit

verbundenen Zeremonien,” MGWJ 54 (1910) 544–52; 55 (1911) 43–47; D. Sperber,

“On Sealing the Abysses,” JSS 11 (1966) 168–74; J. Heinemann, “King David and the

Eruption of Abysmal Waters” (Hebrew), Studies in Literature Presented to Simon

Halkin (ed. E. Fleischer; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1973) 23–34. In the Muslim tradition,

note the commentaries and legends surrounding Qur’ān 57:13. In this eschatological

passage, a wall is placed between the believers and the hypocrites—the wall separating

heaven (“mercy”) from hell (“doom”). The unnamed wall is associated by tradition

with the eastern wall of the Old City of Jerusalem. See esp. Tabarî’s Tafsîr on the

verse, and the references cited by I. Hasson in his edition of al-Wāsiṭî’s Faḍā’il al-

Bayt al-Muqaddas (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1979) 16 n. 4. 39 Here, then, might be the long-sought nexus between vv 3–6 and 7–10. Both

passages answer the question, “Who may enter the sanctuary?” The question is first

treated cultically with respect to persons, then mythologically with respect to gods. 40 Text: A. De Buck, The Egyptian Coffin Texts (OIP 67; Chicago: University of

Chicago, 1951) Spell #312, specifically 83m–84f. Translations: A. De Buck, “The

Earliest Version of Book of the Dead 78,” JEA 35 (1949) 87–97; R. O. Faulkner (cited

here), The Ancient Egyptian Coffin Texts (Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1973) 1.229–

33. See also Zandee, Death as an Enemy, 122. 41 Note the macabre wordplay in Gen 40:20: nś’ r’š = “to pardon” in one case, and “to

raise the head,” i.e., “to hang” (cf. colloquial English “stretch his neck”) in the other.

Note,too, the careful preparation for double entendre in 40:13, 19. See also 2 Kgs

25:27//Jer 52:31, and the interesting variation between them. The technical meaning of

nś’ r’š, “to take a census,” is not relevant here. 42 In Hebrew, usually nś’ ‘yn (wr’h). The idioms nś’ pnym and hrym r’š have nothing

to do with the present discussion. On the latter, see Ehrlich. Gruber (“Nonverbal

Communication”) introduces confusion by grouping nś’ r‘š together with hrym r’š and

nś’ qrn. Moreover, after criticizing Oppenheim (pp. 7–8) for failing to appreciate the

subtlety of Akkadian rēša našū (“to raise the head”), Gruber makes the mistake of

conflating the transitive Akkadian idiom (e.g., Marduk raises the head of so-and-so)

with the reflexive Ugaritic nš’ r’š (the gods raise their own heads). Surely biblical

usage—treated only cursorily by Gruber—argues for more careful delineation. 43 See WAeS 1.572, with WAeS Belegstellen 1.91. When f3y ḥr is used transitively, it

means “to encourage,” which is not far from the transitive signification of Hebrew nś’

r’š (above, n. 41). 44 Ehrlich suggests that nś’ r’š in Judg 8:28 connotes freedom from oppression. He

argues that Ps 24:7–10 refers to a victory which represented a liberation from such

oppression. The gates are admonished to forget the evil times—the long days of siege

during which they had not been raised—and to rejoice in the entry of the victorious

Yahweh (i.e., the ark). While I do not accept the details of Ehrlich’s interpretation, I

agree with his contention that nś’ r’š in Psalm 24 ought to be viewed in the light of

other biblical occurrences of the idiom. For an argument to the contrary (without

reference to Ehrlich), see Gruber, “Nonverbal Communication.” I see no reason to

accept Gruber’s claim that the normal idiomatic meaning of nś’ r’š is “to rejoice” (so

already Anderson; Dahood), although it may well have that sense once in Ugaritic (UT

126.3.12). The evidence supports the translation “to be proud, independent, defiant,”

in all other cases. Note, too, Luke 21:28, with the nuance caught exactly by the JB:

“When these things begin to take place, stand erect, hold your heads high [epárate tàs

kephalàs hymōn = *śĕ’û rā’šêkem], because your liberation is near at hand.” See BAG

281b. 45 As opposed to the enemies of Judah who are nośĕ’îm qeren ‘al ’ereṣ yĕhûdâ. 46 The point is that, right or wrong, Job has no way out. Even if he is innocent, he

cannot stand up to God. So the continuation (admittedly difficult): “If I resisted [w’g‘h

for MT wyg‘h], you would hunt me like a lion.” 47 Modern scholars who have taken the command to the gates to be metaphorical (see

already Maimonides, Guide of the Perplexed, 3.7) have nevertheless relied on the

literal, rather than the idiomatic sense of nś’ r’š. Thus, according to Hupfeld, the

instruction “ist natürlich nur poetische Figur zur Veranschaulichung der Grösse und

Erhabenheit des einziehenden Gottes.” Gunkel unintentionally reduces this

interpretation to absurdity: God is so great that “sein Haupt die Oberschwelle der Tore

berühren würde.” The gates are evidently called on to “raise up” (Herkenne: “ihre

Oberschwellen emporrecken”) in order to accommodate the gigantic deity. Similarly

Beaucamp; Baethgen, Delitzsch (who cites Job 10:15 and Zech 2:4 without explaining

their relevance); Ewald; Gruber, “Nonverbal Communication,” 477; Kissane; Peters;

Staerk. 48 Gruber’s important work (ibid.) demonstrates that such interaction is a common

feature of Akkadian, Ugaritic, and Hebrew literature. See esp. 12–14. 49 Cf., e.g., Isa 2:12–13 (literal); Isa 52:13; Ps 94:2 (figurative).

50 In v 9aβ, either ûśĕ’û should be emended to wĕhinnāśĕ’û (see esp. M. Held, “The

Action-Result [Factitive-Passive] Sequence of Identical Verbs in Biblical Hebrew and

Ugaritic,” JBL 84 [1965] 276, n. 8), or else it means the same thing (so Baethgen). 51 I take wĕyābô’ melek hakkābôd to be conclusive rather than purposive (so, e.g.,

RSV).Similarly, D. Michel (Tempora und Satzstellung in den Psalmen [Bonn: Bouvier,

1960] 167) argues on the basis of all occurrences of the sequence imperative +

imperfect subjunctive that the subjunctive “in finalem Sinn gebraucht wird.” 52 Also in the Bible, of course; cf. Isa 38:10; Jonah 2:7; Ps 9:14; 107:18; Job 38:16–17

(and N.B. LXX). See also Sir 51:9; Wis 16:13; 3 Mace 5:51, 1QH as above, n. 34;

Matt 16:18; Rev 1:18; Pss. Sol. 16:2; Odes Sol. 17:9; 42:17. For discussion, see esp.

Dhorme, “Le séjour des morts chez les Babyloniens et les Hébreux,” RB 16 (1907)

58–78, esp. 65–71. 53 See Zandee, Death as an Enemy. 54 Discussed by Zandee, ibid., 116. The translation is that of T. G. Allen (The Book of

the Dead or Going Forth by Day [Chicago: University of Chicago, 1974] 139). 55 See esp. W. Sladek, “Inanna’s Descent to the Netherworld,” Johns Hopkins

University Ph.D. Dissertation, 1974, 59–60, 67–70. 56 VAT 10057, ed. W. von Soden, “Die Unterweltsvision eines assyrischen

Kronprinzen,” ZA 43 [n.f. 9] (1936) 17, 1.59. The visionary is handed over to the

gatekeeper Lugalsula, so that he might be ushered out of the netherworld through the

“Gate of Ishtar and Aya.” E. Ebeling (Tod und Leben nach der Vorstellung der

Babylonier [Berlin/Leipzig: de Gruyter, 1931] 1.7) conjectured that this might well be

the gate “wo Ištar bei der Rückkehr zur Oberwelt hinausgegangen ist.” 57 Diri II, ed. B. Meissner, Studien zur assyrischen Lexikographie II (MAOG 3/3;

Osnabrück: O. Zeller, 1929) 8, col. II, 1.141. See also AHW 1.95a, 245a; CAD B. 14b;

E. 308b. 58 E.g., G. Meier, “Die zweite Tafel der Serie bit mēseri,” AfO 14 (1941–44) 146,

11.126ff., and the parallels cited by Meier, 152n. 59 CT XVI.13.ii.44ff., cited in CAD E.311a. 60 On Nedu, see W. Farber,“ ‘Grosspförtner Nedu’ und ein Problem neubabylonischer

Schreibertradition,” ZA 66 (1976) 261–75. 61 Cited here in the translation of Allen, Book of the Dead, 100. See, in addition to the

commentators mentioned below, König; Jacquet; Schrade, Der verborgene Gott. 62 Cf. Ps 24:4. 63 “Le Psaume 24.” 64 “Der Beichtspiegel: Eine gattungsgeschichtliche Studie,” ZAW 47 (1929) 125–30. 65 This problem already bothered Athanasius (see below, n. 89), who could not

imagine how any created thing (i.e., the gates) could possibly resist its creator. He

suggests, therefore, that the gates of heaven are commanded to open for the benefit of

mankind. 66 On this point, see esp. Gunkel; also Staerk; Weiser. 67 Gunkel discusses the “Märchenmotiv” of the hero seeking entry. The gates (the

temple gates, according to Gunkel) would deny entry to anyone but their Lord, so they

must be certain of his identity. In the same vein, see Ambrose’s description of the

doubting angels who recite Ps 24:7–10, in De Mysteriis (below, n. 89). 68 GKC § 136c. 69 Cf. Isa 50:9; Job 13:19; 17:3. Similarly, with other pronouns in emphatic position,

Exod 3:11 (mî ’ānōkî); 1 Sam 26:14 (mî ’attâ); Isa 51:12 (mî ’att). Note, too, examples

of such interrogative compounds with different nuances: Isa 63:1; Ps 25:12; Job 4:7;

Lam3:37; Cant 3:6; 6:10; 8:5. 70 The construction NP1 + hû’ + NP2 is commonly found in the Qumran Pesharim. M.

Goshen-Gottstein (“Hebrew Syntax and the History of the Bible Text,” Textus 8

[1973] 100–106, esp. 103–4), commenting on Isa 9:13–14, has termed it a “tripartite

nominal identificatory (equational) sentence.” Such sentences function to press the

identification of NP1 with NP2. 71 This question is beyond the scope of the present discussion. In my view, the

fundamental study from the historical point of view is V. Maag, “Jahwäs

Heerscharen,” Schweizerische Theologische Umschau 20:3/4 (1950) 27–52. He argues

(p. 50) that “Die ṣĕbā’ôt sind die depotenzierten mythischen Natürmachte Kanaans,

und die Propagierung des Titels ‘Gott der ṣĕbā’ôt war eine erste wichtige Waffe im

diesbezuglichen geistigen Ringen des Jahwismus.” Yahweh assimilates the power of

these lesser deities so that, in effect, YHWH ṣĕbā’ôt is an appositional construction:

“Jahwä ist das Ende der ṣĕbā’ôt, weil er das Ende der dämonischen Obherren ist” (p.

52). Ehrlich had already claimed that both melek hākkabôd and YHWH ṣĕbā’ôt were

appositional. And see also O. Eissfeldt, “Jahwe Zebaoth,” Kleine Schriften (5 vols.;

Tübingen: Mohr, 1966) 3.102–23. 72 See Gunkel, who comments that the psalmist has saved his “Trumpf,” the

“eigentliche Kultusname” of God, for the end. 73 On this point, the basic treatment is R. Rendtorff, Offenbarung als Geschichte

(ed.W. Pannenberg; KD Beiheft 1; 2d ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,

1963) 21–41, esp. 28–32. See also E. Jenni and C. Westermann, Theologisches

Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament (Munich/Zürich: Kaiser/Theologisches, 1971)

1.803–6, esp. 804; W. H. Schmidt, Königtum Gottes in Ugarit und Israel (BZAW 80;

2d ed.; Berlin: Töpelmann, 1966) 25–26, 55–58. 74 For bibliography and discussion, see A. Cooper, “Ugaritic Divine Names and

Epithets,” Ras Shamra Parallels (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1981) 3.435–36.

Ginsberg’s almost universally accepted claim has recently been challenged by Y.

Avishur, “Psalm 29—Canaanite or Hebrew?” (Hebrew), Ben-Zion Luria Volume

(Jerusalem: Kiryat Sepher, 1979) 247–74. Avishur argues that, despite the linguistic

and stylistic similarity of Psalm 29 to Ugaritic verse, the key theological concepts are

essentially Israelite. Even if Avishur is correct, there is no doubt that the Israelite

adaptation of the storm theophany employs Canaanite literary and mythological tropes

in order to enrich the image of the God of Israel. See also J. L. Cunchillos, Estudio del

salmo 29 (Valencia: San Jerōnimo, 1976) 163–68, 187–96. 75 Cross (Canaanite Myth) has pointed to this process by arguing that a Canaanite

myth-and-ritual pattern underlies the psalm (p. 93), although for Cross the battle for

kingship among the gods (“Ritual Conquest” [p. 99]) rather than the descent-battle

provides its mythological background. Weiser had suggested that, like Psalm 77, our

psalm represents the victory of God over the forces of chaos, but he saw the

mythological basis of the text in a cosmogonic creation myth. (So too, perhaps, the

final redactor of Psalm 24,to judge by vv 1–2.) 76 So, e.g., Y. Kaufmann (The Religion of Israel [Chicago: University of Chicago,

1960] 311): “The realm of the dead, the rites connected with death and burial, as well

as the destiny of the soul in the other world, play no part in the religion of YHWH.” 77 “The Last Enemy,” SJT 32 (1979) 151–69. 78 So rightly W. Herrmann, “Jahwes Triumph über Mot,” UF 11 (1979) 371–77. See

also U. Cassuto, “Baal and Mot in the Ugaritic Texts,” Biblical and Oriental Studies

(Jerusalem: Magnes, 1975) 2.168–77;B. Margalit, A Matter of ‘Life’ and ‘Death’

(AOAT 206; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1980); A. Cooper, Ras Shamra

Parallels, 3.392–400. 79 See, e.g., U. Cassuto, “The Israelite Epic,” Biblical and Oriental Studies, 2.69–

109;S. Loewenstamm, “The Ugaritic Myth of the Sea and its Biblical Counterparts”

(Hebrew), Eretz Israel 9 (1969) 96–101; S. Norin, Er spaltete das Meer (ConBOT 9;

Lund: Gleerup, 1977); T. Fenton, “Differing Approaches to the Theomachy Myth in

Old Testament Writers” (Hebrew), Studies in Bible and the Ancient Near East

(Loewenstamm Festschrift; ed. Y. Avishur and J. Blau; Jerusalem: Rubinstein, 1978)

337–81. 80 The basic Christian material concerning the Descensus doctrine is assembled by H.

Quilliet, “Descente de Jésus aux enfers,” Dictionnaire de théologie catholique

(Paris:Letouzey et Ané: 1911) 4.565–619. See also Kroll, Gott und Hölle, 1–125; J.

Monnier, La descente aux enfers (Paris: Fischbacher, 1904); J. Turmel, La descente du

Christ auxenfers (Science et Religion 342; Paris: Bloud, 1905); L. Reinke, Die

messianische Psalmen (Giessen: Ferber’sche Universitätsbuchhandlung: 1857) 1.318–

23. (My thanks to Mr. Daniel Frank for kindly providing me with a copy of this rare

and important book.) For a survey of current research on early Christian exegesis of

Psalms, see G. Haendler, “Zur Auslegung der Psalmen in der Alten Kirche,” TLZ 103

(1978) 625–32. Père Dreyfus has suggested to me that the Christian eschatological

interpretation of Ps 24:7–10 must have been inherited from Judaism. This is an

attractive idea, supported perhaps by certain inner-biblical indications and by Qumran

texts (above, n. 34), but early rabbinic interpretation is uniformly non- (anti?-)

eschatological. And even if it could be shown that there was a pre-Christian

eschatological understanding of the psalm, that would not account for the larger

mythological structure which vitalizes the psalm for the early Church. 81 See F. Cumont, Lux Perpetua (Paris: Geuthner, 1949) 233–34. 82 J. D. Mansi, Sacrorum conciliorum … (repr.; Graz: Akademische Druck- und

Verlagsanstalt, 1960) 3.264; see also Quilliet, “Descente de Jésus,” 569. The

translation is mine (as are all translations in this paper unless otherwise noted). 83 See A. Cabaniss, “The Harrowing of Hell, Psalm 24, and Pliny the Younger: A

Note,” VC 7 (1953) 65–74; also the important study of E. Kähler, Studien zum Te

Deum und zur Geschichte des 24. Psalms in der alten Kirche (Göttingen:

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1958) 43–73. Professor Moshe Greenberg kindly called my

attention to the Jewish opposition to Christian use of Psalm 24 which is found in

medieval polemical literature. See Sēper Niṣṣāhôn Yāšān (ed. M. Breuer; Tel Aviv:

Bar Ilan University, 1978) 123; id. (ed. D. Berger; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication

Society, 1979) 97–98 (text), 155–56 (translation). 84 For the text, see C. Tischendorf, Evangelia Apocrypha (2d ed.; Leipzig:

Mendelssohn, 1876) 323–32 (Greek); 388–432 (Latin A and B). For introductions and

translations, see M. R. James, The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon,

1924) 94–95, 117–46 (a full translation of all three versions); E. Hennecke, New

Testament Apocrypha (ed.W. Schneemelcher; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963)

1.444–49, 470–81 (translation of Latin B). For the specific passage discussed here

(Greek and Latin A, ch. 5 [21]; Latin B, ch. 7 [23], see Tischendorf, 328, 397–98;

James, 132–34; Hennecke (the translation cited here), 479–80. 85 So LXX; Vg. The variation from the Hebrew, however, is not responsible for the

divergence of Christian interpretation from Jewish. See Jerome, Epistola XVIII A ad

Damasum (ed. J. Labourt [Paris: Les belles lettres, 1949] 1.62–63): “The powers who

served the Lord cried to the other celestial forces to open the gates for the Lord who

was returning to heaven: ‘Lift up your gates, O Princes’—or even, as Aquila

translates, ‘Lift up, gates, your heads’ [italics added]—‘and the King of Glory will

enter.’ ” The christological interpretation, then, applies just as well to the Hebrew (i.e.,

Aquila’s literal rendering) as to the LXX variant. For information on the textual

traditions, see F. Field, Origenis Hexaplorum (Oxford: Clarendon, 1875) 2.121; J.

Ecker, Porta Sion (Trier: Paulinus, 1903) 1558 (s.v. “princeps”). On the variations

between LXX and Hebrew Psalms in general (not on our verse, unfortunately), see

Jerome, Epistola CVI ad Sunniam et Fretelam (Biblia Sacra iuxta Latinam Vulgatam

Versionem [Rome: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1953] 10.8–42). 86 I.e., Ps 24:7; Isa 26:19; 1 Cor 15:55 (referring to Isa 25:8). 87 The Gospel of Nicodemus had a tremendous impact on popular religious

conceptions. Note especially the Middle English Harrowing of Hell, a poetic version

of the gospel which was used in a dramatic re-enactment of the events described. Ps

24:7–10 is paraphrased at the climax of the poem. For the text, see W. H. Hulme, The

Middle-English Harrowing of Hell and Gospel of Nicodemus (Early English Text

Society; London: Paul, Trench, Trübner, 1907) 106–10 (§§113–17). See also J. A.

MacCulloch, The Harrowing of Hell (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1930) esp. 152–73. 88 A sermon of Eusebius (which Eusebius is uncertain) follows the Gospel of

Nicodemus closely; see PG 86/1, cols. 403–6. There is an even fuller account in a

sermon falsely attributed to Epiphanius (PG 43, cols. 452–64). Jesus breaches the

gates of the netherworld as his angelic entourage cries out Ps 24:7–10 repeatedly.

(Each repetition is accompanied by exegetical embellishment.) The demons are in

disarray; the angels pursue and capture them. In the meantime, Adam is awakened by

the noise, and he understands that his deliverance is at hand. He prostrates himself at

the feet of Jesus, who leads him, together with Abel, Abraham, et al. to heaven.

Pseudo-Epiphanius includes a lovely interpretation of the image connoted by the

command, “Lift up …”: “Don’t open, but lift up the gates so that they will never again

be closed. Don’t open, but lift them right out of their foundations; uproot, remove, so

that they will never again be closed.” 89 Some of the sources are cited in the commentaries of Bellarmin and Jacquet; see

also Kähler, Studien zum Te Deum. In addition to the works of J. Firmicus Maternus

and Gregory of Nyssa which are discussed in detail here, see the following: Ambrose

of Milan, De Fide 4.1.3ff. (PL 16, cols. 617–22); id., De Mysteriis 36 (SC 25 bis, 174–

76); Apocalypse of Peter 17 (Hennecke, NT Apocrypha, 2.682–83); Athanasius, De

Incarnatione 25.5–6 (SC 199, 358–59); id., Oratio I Contra Arianos §41B (PG 26, col.

97); Gregory Nazianzenus, Oratio XLV 24–25 (PG 36, col. 657); Hippolytus apud

Theodoret (PG 83, col. 176 = GCS Hippolytus 1/2, 147); Irenaeus, “Erweis der

apostolischen Verkündigung” §§78, 83–85 (TU 30/1 [1907]); Jerome, Epistola XVIII

(see above, n. 85); Justin, First Apology §51 (ed. L. Pautigny [Paris: Picard, 1904]

105–6); Origen, Commentary on John 6.287–88 (ad John 1:29; GCS Origen 4, 164–65

= SC 157, 348–51); Tertullian, De Fuga in Persecutione 12.4 (CSEL 76, 36). All of

these authors cite Ps 24:7–10 in connection with the ascension, and most either

describe or allude to the preceding descent-battle. On the fascinating notion that

ascension to heaven after death represents a transformation of the imagery of descent,

see Cumont, Lux Perpetua, 275–302, esp. 280–81; also A. Segal, Aufstieg und

Niedergang der Römischen Welt, II/23/2 (Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1980), 1333–

94. 90 Text edition with German translation: K. Ziegler (Das Wort der Antike 3; Munich:

Max Hueber, 1953) 70–73 (text of chap. 24); 40–43 (translation); cf. also the

annotated text edition by A. Pastorino (Biblioteca di Studi Superiori 27; Florence: La

Nuova Italia, 1956) 231–41 (chap. 24); 246–48 (a long note on the descent motif). And

see the discussion and analysis by Kähler (Studien zum Te Deum, 65–69). 91 This is presumably an exegetical alteration of Jerome’s translation of LXX: attolite

[var. tollite] portas principes vestras. See the sources cited above, n. 85; note also the

variants in mss of Firmicus Maternus, cited in Ziegler’s ed., 72 (note on 1.43). The

variant text of Ps 24:7 which is used by Firmicus Maternus is also quoted in an anti-

Christian polemic attributed to David Qimḥi. See F. Talmage’s ed. of Sēper Habbĕrît

(Jerusalem: Bialik, 1974) 88 with n. 17. 92 This is an altogether free rendering of the verse. 93 Text: PG 46, cols 689–94. See also J. Daniélou, “Notes sur trois textes

eschatologiques de saint Grégoire de Nysse: Les portes éternelles,” RSR 30 (1940)

352–53. 94 See the literature cited above, n. 35. 95 It is interesting to note a Jewish version of the descent myth which appears in some

medieval exegeses of Psalm 24. God descends to earth through the gates of

heaven,subdues his (i.e., the Jews’) enemies, and establishes his eternal dominion. A

number of factors gave rise to this kind of interpretation, and familiarity with Christian

exegesis of Psalm 24 (through the polemical literature?) was no doubt one of them.

According to Isaiah di Trani (ca. 1300; cited from ed. A. Wertheimer [Jerusalem,

1965]), “David saw with the Holy Spirit that in the Messianic era the Creator would

restore Israel to its former glory and would judge the world.…” The gates of Psalm 24

are the gates of heaven,which must be raised so that “the Creator, who is the King of

Glory, might come to judgethe nations and take revenge upon them.” Similarly Joseph

Ibn Yaḥya (ca. 1528; cited from Sēper Qĕhillôt Mōšeh [Amsterdam Rabbinic Bible],

1627), who glosses pitḥê ‘ôlām as “the gates of the world below [pitḥê ha‘ôlām

haššāpēl] through which the King of Glory might enter it.” According to Moses

Alshech (1st ed., Venice, 1605; cited from ed.Vilna, 1902/3), who also sees in the

psalm a prediction of God’s forthcoming victory over the nations, the righteous are the

pitḥê ‘ôlām, since God’s grace enters the world through them. God will only bring his

Presence into the “Last Temple” if those pitḥê ‘ôlām are “exalted and raised up by the

quality of righteousness.…” Finally, for Ovadia Sforno (1586; cited from Sēper

Qĕhillôt Mōšeh) the pitḥê ‘ôlām are the “doors of the academies whose business is

eternal life [pitḥê bātê midrāšôt še‘isqām bêḥayyê ‘ôlām].” When manyare gathered in

those places, God will come into the world, subdue the nations, and rule alone (cf. Isa

60:11). “In this psalm, [David] prayed that all Israel might merit the coming of the

Messiah and life in the world to come.”

Alan Cooper, “Ps 24:7–10: Mythology and Exegesis,” Journal of Biblical Literature

102 (1983): 37–60.