The Qumran Psalms Scroll Reconsidered: Analysis of the Debate

GERALD H. WILSON University of Georgia Athens, GA 30602

SINCE IT WAS UNROLLED in 1961, the Qumran Psalms Scroll (HQPsa) has been defended by James A. Sanders as an early form of the Hebrew Psalter prior to fixation of its content and arrangement in the canonical text.1 Because the scroll is dated on paleographical as well as archaeological grounds to the first half of the first century A.D., Sanders's claims have seriously challenged the prevailing thesis that the Psalter was fixed in form and "canonized" by the fourth century B.C.2 This challenge has led to an extended debate between Sanders, who considers 1 lQPs* a landmark in the development of the masoretic (canonical) Psalter, and others (Patrick W. Skehan, Shemaryahu Talmon, and M. H. Goshen-Gottstein) who accept the fourth century B.C. canonization of the Psalter and consider the Qumran scroll to be a late, nonauthoritative arrangement of canonical and apocryphal

1 James A. Sanders has espoused his views in numerous articles. See particularly The Dead Sea Psalms Scroll (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, 1967) 12; "The Qumran Psalms Scroll (1 lQPsa) Reviewed," On Language, Culture, and Religion: In Honor of Eugene A. Nida (The Hague: Mouton, 1974) 95-96; "Variorum in the Psalms Scroll (1 lQPsa)," HTR 59 (1966) 86-87.

2 Patrick W. Skehan most recently and persuasively argued for the earlier date in "Qum­ran and Old Testament Criticism," Qumran: sa piété, sa théologie et son milieu (BETL 46; éd. M. Delcor; Gembloux: Duculot, 1978) 163-82. Otto Eissfeldt presents the various options in his The Old Testament: An Introduction, (New York: Harper & Row, 1965) 450-51. M. Dahood, on the basis of Ugaritic data, indicates "a preexilic date for most of the Psalms," with some possibly "composed in the Davidic period" {Psalms I. 1-50 [AB 16; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965] xxx).

624

THE QUMRAN PSALMS SCROLL RECONSIDERED 625

psalms collected after the fixation of the canonical Psalter. In this article I analyze the arguments for both of these positions as they relate to HQPs* and its significance for our understanding of the canonical arrangement.

The reader will note throughout this discussion that the term "canon" is employed in conflicting ways by the various participants in the debate. Thus, on the one hand Sanders refers to an "open-ended" canon which is authori­tative but can still receive additions. On the other hand, Skehan objects that a "canon" is by definition a closed list of acceptable books. These conflicting views reflect the growing tension between traditional and recent understand­ings of the canonical process, sparked in part by the evidence of the Qumran scrolls themselves. Traditionally, the canon has been considered a closed list of books established by the authoritative decision of a group of "schol­ars," a decision which then becomes authoritative and binding for the be­lieving community.

By contrast, the recent works of Sid Z. Leiman, Brevard S. Childs, and others (including Sanders himself) have emphasized the long and complex nature of canonical development.3 For these scholars a "canon" no longer means an exclusive list of acceptable books without possibility of expansion. Leiman's definition is representative:

A canonical book is a book accepted by Jews as authoritative for religious practice and/or doctrine, and whose authority is binding upon the Jewish people for all generations. Furthermore, such books are to be studied and expounded in private and in public.4

Noticeably absent is any reference to exclusivity or closure in this definition. A "closed list of books" is not (for Leiman) simply a "canon" but a "closed canon."5

This second view emphasizes the gradual growth of canon through the accretion of additional authoritative materials. At any given point in the history of the believing community, however, a "canon" exists in that collec­tion of writings accepted as authoritative guides for faith and doctrine. While this collection is authoritative and, perhaps, even relatively fixed (some writ­ings have been excluded), it is not "closed." The gradual expansion of the OT is itself an example of this process. The three divisions (Torah, Prophets, and Writings) represent sequential expansions of the "canonical" literature of

3 Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979); Sid Z. Leiman, The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture (Transactions of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 47; Hamden, CT: Anchor Books, 1976); James A. Sanders, Torah and Canon (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972).

4 Sid Z. Leiman, Canonization, 14. 5 Ibid., 14-16,23-24, 131-35.

626 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 47, 1985

Israel. It was only at a late date (ca. A.D. 100) that this dynamic process was ended and the canon closed.6

While in the classical sense canon refers only to the end product of this development, the recent attempts to push "canon" further back in the pro­cess react, in part, against the tendency of the traditional view to obscure the existence of "canon consciousness" in the early history of Israel. Such a "canon consciousness" is demonstrated by the concern to collect, preserve, and transmit authoritative documents. The traditional view, by contrast, relegated such awareness, for the most part, to the final stages of the process alone. While the traditional understanding is, perhaps, more "proper," I think Sanders is warranted in his affirmation of the possibility of an "open-ended canon." I turn now to consideration of Sanders's view of the nature of HQPs*.

James A. Sanders

SANDERS, IN AFFIRMING the canonicity of 1 lQPs*, begins by noting the strong Davidic framework which shapes the scroll. In a 1963 article concern­ing the HQPsa version of Psalm 151 (previously known only in the LXX), Sanders cites numerous elements in the final two columns of the scroll as evidence that "at Qumran . . . there was little or no doubt that [David] was the author of the Psalter as they knew it."7 Among these elements he includes: the "Last Words of David" imported from 2 Sam 23:7; a prose catalog of "David's Compositions"; the climactic position of the Davidic Psalms 151A and B; and the "omission" in the superscript of 151A of the LXX's qualifying phrase exöthen tou arithmou ("It is outside the number [of canonical psalms]").8 The presence of such strong Davidic elements in this climactic

6 William W Hallo's comments on the canonization of Sumenan literature are also illuminative in this context, see "Toward a History of Sumenan Literature," Sumerological Studies in Honor of Thorkild Jacobsen (University of Chicago, Assynological Studies 20, Chicago University of Chicago, 1976) 181-203

7 James A Sanders, "Ps 151 in 1 lQPss," ΖAW76 (1963) 77-78 8 While it might be argued that the presence of this qualifying phrase in the LXX

suggests that the content of the Psalter was already fixed when the Greek translation was made, a recent study by A Pietersma ("David in the Greek Psalms," VT 30 [1980] 213-23) indicates that this superscript is a late addition subsequent to the LXX translation Further, the sugges­tion that the existence of the LXX translation demands a pre-Christian date for the fixation of the Psalter canon is debatable since we have no extant pre-Christian manuscripts of a LXX Psalter While it is certainly probable that Greek translations of individual psalms and even portions of the Psalter did exist at this time, it is impossible to know the extent and composition of that collection without MS evidence It is possible, therefore, that the pre-Christian LXX Psalter evidenced the same fluidity found among the Hebrew psalms MSS from Qumran

THE QUMRAN PSALMS SCROLL RECONSIDERED 627

position "clearly demonstrate^] the [Qumran sectarians'] belief that David composed . . . all the psalms in the scroll."9 In addition the evidence indi­cates HQPsa "was clearly considered a portion of the Davidic Psalter."10

The Davidic character of the scroll is further enhanced by the addition of Davidic superscripts to canonical Psalms 104 and 123 (and apparently the apocryphal Psalm 151B), along with the elimination of any doubt of authen­ticity in the superscript of Psalm 151 A.11

This pervasive aura of Davidic authority is unmarred by any effort to distinguish overtly between "canonical" and "apocryphal" psalms in the scroll. Ordinary scribal conventions of script and layout are observed in both cases and Sanders repeatedly uses the term "biblical" to describe the apocryphal compositions in the scroll.12 The apocryphal psalms admit no internal evi­dence which demands a late date or indicates that they are necessarily sectar­ian in origin. Consequently, it is even possible for D. Luhrmann, in a study of these psalms, to conclude that they originated in the late third century B.C. (considerably earlier than the appearance of the Qumran community) as the product of "late wisdom."13 It is also doubtful, according to Sanders, that apocryphal compositions such as these would have been included in a Davidic scroll had their origin and authorship been so contemporaneous as to have been known.14

Sanders's claims are buttressed by comparing the apocryphal composi­tions of HQPsa with the obviously sectarian Hôdâyôt (1QH). In style and vocabulary 1QH are clearly distinct from the biblical psalms. The Hôdâyôt are never attributed to David. They are not combined with canonical psalms, but are preserved separately in their own collection. Sanders feels this treat­ment of the Hôdâyôt reflects the sectarians' awareness that these hymns were composed by the leader of the sect, the Teacher of Righteousness.

The remarkable difference between the Cave 1 hymns [Hôdâyôt] and our apoc­ryphal psalms, aside from some question of style, is that the latter are contained in a scroll of biblical psalms. And this must not be lost sight of. The Psalms Scroll was believed, by its scribe and by those who read and appreciated it, supposedly the sectarians at Qumran, to have been Davidic in original author-

9 James A. Sanders, "Variorum," 84. 10 Ibid., 84 and 90. See also his Dead Sea Psalms Scroll, 10-11; "The Dead Sea Scrolls—A

Quarter Century of Study," BA 36 (1973) 140; "Two Non-canonical Psalms in 1 lQPsa," ZAW76 (1964)67.

11 James A. Sanders, "Ps 151," 77-78. 12 James A. Sanders, "Two Non-canonical Psalms," 73; Dead Sea Psalms Scroll, 11. 13 James A. Sanders, Dead Sea Psalms Scroll, 108-9, 116, 119, 123; see also "Two Non-

canonical Psalms," 66-67, 73. 14 James A. Sanders, "Two Non-canonical Psalms," 67, 73.

628 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 47, 1985

ship. No such claim is made for the Thanksgiving Hymns: on the contrary, there is some basis for thinking that they were composed by the leader of the Qumran sect, who was called the Teacher of Righteousness.. . . These apocryphal psalms must be treated independently of the Cave 1 Thanksgiving Hymns.15

Sanders concludes that, in view of the scroll's strong Davidic character, the lack of any evidence of necessary sectarian origin or late date, and the absence from the scroll of any clearly sectarian theological or liturgical bias, 1 lQPsa should be considered "not as a deviation from a rigidly fixed canon of the latter third of the Psalter but rather as a signpost in the multi-faceted history of the canonization of the Psalter."16 Elsewhere Sanders has stated his position more clearly:

I think that the field is moving toward affirming that the Qumran Psalter, represented by 1 lQPsa, was "canonical" at Qumran though by no means closed; on the contrary, it was, while authoritative, still open-ended.17

While Sanders contends that the "canon" represented by 1 lQPsa is not yet fixed, but could receive additional material, he does not suggest that the whole Psalter is fluid, but limits such "openness" to the last third of the book (Psalms 101-150). By contrast, there is little evidence at Qumran of deviation from the masoretic arrangement of Psalms 1-100, and Sanders himself calls the stability of these psalms "remarkable."18 Sanders believes these data require a new understanding of the process by which the contents and arrangement of the Psalter reached stabilization. Such a new view assumes a gradual process of stabilization from beginning to end, with Psalms 1-100 assuming relative fixity at a time when Psalms 101-150 were still open to supplementation and rearrangement. As confirmation of this gradual pro­cess Sanders cites the work of Avi Hurwitz, who concludes that all ten psalms that can be considered postexilic (and, therefore, very late) are found in the last third of the Psalter.19

Accordingly, Sanders suggests the following tentative hypothesis: (1) The general process of stabilization was arrested when the Qumran sectarians left Jerusalem to pursue their independent existence. At that point the Psalter

15 James A. Sanders, Dead Sea Psalms Scroll, 11; see also "Variorum," 85-86. 16 James A. Sanders, Dead Sea Psalms Scroll, 13; "Variorum," 90-91; "Cave 11 Surprises

and the Question of Canon," McCormick Review 21 (1968) 288. This important article is also available in New Directions in Biblical Archaeology (ed. D. N. Freedman and J. C. Greenfield; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1969-71) 101-16; Nôsah hammiqrä" bëqûmrâ'n (ed. R. Weis and Ι. Τον, Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1972) 104-13; and The Canon and Masorah of the Hebrew Bible (ed. Sid Z. Leiman; New York: Ktav, 1974) 37-51.

17 James A. Sanders, "Psalms Scroll Reviewed," 98. 18 James A. Sanders, "Cave 11 Surprises," 292. 19 Ibid., 294.

THE QUMRAN PSALMS SCROLL RECONSIDERED 629

was stable in its first two-thirds. (2) The fluid final portion developed inde­pendently at Qumran and Jerusalem. The Qumran scroll became more expansive through the addition of "Hasidic and proto-Essene" hymns, which were considered Davidic. (3) The Jerusalem group was hastened towards early closure to preserve its own arrangement in opposition to that of Qum­ran. This resulted in the present canonical collection.20

Among the critics of Sanders's proposals, three have been particularly prominent. I will now deal in turn with the critiques of Shemaryahu Talmon, M. H. Goshen-Gottstein, and Patrick W. Skehan.

Shemaryahu Talmon

ISRAELI SCHOLAR Shemaryahu Talmon argues against seeing HQPsa as a "copy of the Biblical Book of Psalms." It is rather a collection of composi­tions for homiletical and liturgical purposes. He practically dismisses the question out of hand when he concludes (in circular fashion) that the "numerous non-canonical interpolations" and the "unorthodox arrangement of the canonical psalms" are clear evidence of the scroll's non-canonical nature. To this he adds the "surprising inclusion . . . of a prose piece [David's Compositions]" which he considers incompatible with a canonical collection.21

Talmon rather obliquely affirms the noncanonical nature of HQPsa in his discussion oí thepîsqâDbë:>emsâcpâsûq (hereafter, p.b.p.)—blank spaces left within a verse in the ancient MSS of the Hebrew Bible and preserved throughout the centuries by the copyist scribes. The p.b.p., he claims, serve to direct the reader's attention to "missing" text units. These omitted units are not original, canonical materials, but "extra-textual elaborations of and expolations [sic] on given passages in scripture, especially in the Books of Samuel, to which the early tradents wish to direct" attention. In other words, the p.b.p. in the Pentateuch introduce extra expansions of the scriptural accounts which immediately precede them.22 Talmon thinks Psalm 151A of 1 lQPsa was intended to expand poetically on the account of David's election in 1 Samuel 16 and was "introduced" or "indicated" by the p.b.p. located in 1 Sam 16:12. Similarly, Psalm 15IB is introduced by the p.b.p. in 1 Sam 17:37

20 Ibid., 294-95. 21 Shemaryahu Talmon, "Mizmôrîm flisônîm ballâSôn hâcibrît me"qûmrà°n," Tarbiz 35

(1966) 214-34, and summaries, pp. II-III. An English translation is available in his "Pisqah Be>emsac Pasuq and 1 lQPsa," Textus 5 (1966) 11-21.

22 Shemaryahu Talmon, "Pisqah Be3emsac Pasuq," 17-18. Brevard S. Childs discusses the effects of this association of hymnic texts with narrative traditions on the historical notices in the superscriptions of the psalms in "Psalm Titles and Midrashic Exegesis," J SS 16 (1971) 137-50.

630 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 47, 1985

and expands on the story of David's battle with Goliath, while Psalms 154 and 155 (also in HQPs a) "share the theme of David's rescue from the lion and the bear" and may well have served to expand some other incidents in the canonical account of his life.23

Talmon seems to suggest that the use of these "apocryphal" hymns to expand on canonical texts marked by p.b.p. supports a noncanonical evalua­tion of their character.

In concluding we wish to stress that there can be no doubt that the men who introduced the ρ b p. into the MT never considered the extraneous expansions to which they point as integral components of the Bible They were intended to remain outside the authoritative canon, as some kind of appendices to the original Scripture version 2 4

However, what Talmon must mean is that the expansive texts were not intended to be included in the canonical text at the place where the p.b.p. occur. This is not to say that these texts could not find their place elsewhere in Scripture. Talmon himself suggests that some p.b.p. apparently refer to canonical texts, including some of the canonical psalms.25 Psalm 132 expands the p.b.p. at 2 Sam 7:4;26 Psalm 51 expands the p.b.p. at 2 Sam 12:12; Psalm 3 expands the p.b.p. at 2 Sam 16:13. Thus, the association of apoc­ryphal psalms with p.b.p. says nothing about their authority or whether they might be included in a "canonical" collection. Indeed, the use of canonical psalms to expand p.b.p. elsewhere in Scripture seems to enhance the possi­bility that these apocryphal compositions were considered equally authorita­tive. At the very least, the association of these "apocryphal" texts with the scriptural accounts they are thought to expand would serve to lend them a certain degree of popular authority, which might explain their inclusion in a canonical collection.

Μ. H. Goshen-Gottstein

IN HIS ARTICLE "The Psalms Scroll (1 lQPs a): A Problem of Canon and Text," M. H. Goshen-Gottstein responds to Sanders's claim that the prose

2 3 Shemaryahu Talmon, "Pisqah Be emsa0 Pasuq," 20 2 4 Ibid , 21, see also "Mizmôrîm yisônîm," summaries, ρ III 2 5 There is no way of knowing whether or not the composition to which a particular ρ b ρ

alludes was an integral part of a "canonical" text at the time the ρ b ρ was introduced The fact that some such compositions ultimately found their place in the canonical Psalter certainly suggests that the "apocryphal" psalms might at some point have been considered equally authoritative

2 6 The ρ b ρ at 2 Sam 7 4 is lacking in both the Leningrad and Cairo codices—an omission which casts some doubt on Shemaryahu Talmon's assurance that they were "preserved throughout the centuries "

THE QUMRAN PSALMS SCROLL RECONSIDERED 631

"epilogue" in HQPsa, col. 27 (David's Compositions), serves as proof that the compiler attributed all these compositions to David and thus considered them all equally authoritative and, ultimately, canonical.27 Goshen-Gottstein rightly argues that there is no sufficient reason to assume that Davidic author­ship is equivalent to canonicity. The epilogue, for Goshen-Gottstein, yields no evidence of the canonicity of HQPs*. To the contrary, he avers, the inclusion of a prose piece establishes the noncanonical nature of the scroll. However, he (like Talmon) gives no explanation as to why prose epilogues are incompatible with canonical psalms collections. In his opinion, the epilogue derives from a desire to exalt David above his son Solomon by attributing to David the authorship of more compositions (4,050) than is elsewhere recorded for his son (4,005 in 1 Kgs 5:12). Further, the epilogue stresses the "liturgical" uses of these 4,050 psalms of David, indicating that 1 lQPsa is no "canonical" Psalter, but a selection of canonical and noncanon­ical psalms for liturgical purposes. The juxtaposition of canonical and apoc­ryphal serves simply to "ensure future use" of the noncanonical psalms by association with their canonical counterparts.28

As other examples of "liturgical" interest in HQPsa Goshen-Gottstein mentions the variant Psalm 145, which adds the refrain "Blessed be Yhwh and blessed be his name forever and ever" after each bicolon (taking its lead from the initial verse: "I will extol thee my God and King and bless thy name forever and ever"). This he considers a liturgical expansion of the canonical psalm and not an independent composition. The "Catena" found in col. 16 which brings together parts of canonical Psalm 118 is taken as further evi­dence of liturgical adaptation of canonical psalms, along with the variant version of Psalm 146 from col. 2.

Finally, Goshen-Gottstein contends that several difficulties would result from the acceptance of the canonicity of 1 lQPsa. First, it would mean that there would be "two (out of more?) different canons, current at Qumran." Secondly, "our whole picture of the completion of the growth of the various books of the Bible accepted as 'canonical' may be wrong," a possibility Goshen-Gottstein seems unwilling to admit.29 Finally, if 1 lQPsa is a "canon," it is only a sectarian canon because it depends on the sectarian calendar evident in the prose epilogue.

In summary, Goshen-Gottstein contends that (1) the prose epilogue and its claims of Davidic authorship present no compelling evidence for the

27 M. H. Goshen-Gottstein, "The Psalms Scroll (HQPsa): A Problem of Canon and Text," Textus 5 (1966) 22-33.

28 Ibid., 27. 29 Ibid., 26.

632 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 47, 1985

canonicity of HQPsa; (2) the obviously liturgical interests of the epilogue, along with the liturgical nature of the compositions themselves, are not consonant with a scroll of canonical nature; (3) a variant "canonical" psalms scroll would call into question accepted theories of the canonization of the Hebrew Bible and would be of only limited, sectarian significance.

Patrick W. Skehan

As THE FOREMOST OPPONENT of the canonicity of HQPsa , Skehan de­scribes the scroll as a "library edition" of psalms arranged after the fixation of the canonical text in the fourth century B.C. This Qumran "Psalter," according to Skehan, is not only subsequent to the canonical Psalter, but dependent on it.30 He objects further to what he considers contradictions and inconsistencies in Sanders's claim that the scroll is at once "canonical" and "open-ended," since canonical implies closed, exclusive, marking off what alone is acceptable. Open-ended, by contrast, emphasizes the tentative nature of the collection and the possibility of addition and deletion of items. Sanders cannot have it both ways, says Skehan. Either 1 lQPsa is "open-ended" or it is "canonical"—it cannot be both.31

From this it is clear that Skehan and Sanders are operating with differ­ent views of "canon." The real conflict is not over whether 1 lQPsa is canoni­cal in the traditional sense (it clearly deviates from the canonical text), but over what was the authority of the scroll at Qumran and what was its place in the canonical process. I will return to this subject at a later point.

Skehan initially limits his discussion to the last book (Psalms 107-150) by adducing evidence from the Chronicler to prove that the Psalter was already fixed at least through Psalm 106 by the fourth century B.C. Referring to the use in 1 Chr 16:8-36 of hymnic compositions known to us as portions of canonical psalms (Pss 105:1-15; 96:1-13; 106:1,47-48), Skehan concludes that the Chronicler is quoting these psalms from their fixed positions in the Psalter. The chief datum on which he bases this conclusion is the apparent use in 1 Chr 16:36 of an adaptation of the concluding benediction and hllwyh of Psalm 106:48, one of the doxologies thought to conclude the first four books of the Psalter. Skehan summarizes:

Now everyone is aware that the verse just quoted is not properly a verse from Ps 106 at all, but is a compiler's addition to the end of the 4th book of the canonical psalter, comparable to what occurs at the ends of Pss 41, 72, and 89. In other

30 Patrick W. Skehan, "Qumran and Old Testament Criticism," 172. 31 Ibid., 164.

THE QUMRAN PSALMS SCROLL RECONSIDERED 633

words, by about 400 B.C., the Chronicler was borrowing from a fixed place not merely the first and last verses of Ps 106, as he did, but also, in the added vs. 48, a benchmark in the structuring of the Psalter as we know it.32

Skehan goes on to say that these data do not prove that the fifth book of the Psalter was closed at that time, but they do indicate the relative priority of the masoretic Psalter over HQPsa and allow him to limit his discussion to the last book, which is still open to question.

Several comments are in order. First, Skehan's assumption that this passage represents quotations of canonical psalms is not verified satisfactor­ily. As Sanders has mentioned elsewhere, this passage could be an independ­ent composition which is a pastiche of portions of Psalms 105, 96, and 106.33

Sanders suggests that the combination of "floating bits of liturgical material" was an acceptable means of creating new psalms for different situations or occasions. Canonical evidence of such a technique exists in Psalm 70 (which is virtually identical with Ps 40:13-17) and in Psalm 108, which combines parts of two other canonical psalms (108:1-5 = 57:7-11; 108:6-13 = 60:5-12). The assumption that the Chronicler was quoting from a fixed group or even from fixed individual psalms is not necessarily supported here.

If, however, one does assume that these are selections from those psalms we now recognize as canonical, one is still not compelled to accept a fourth century B.C. date for the fixation of the final books of the Psalter. Skehan overstates his case when he claims "everyone is aware" that Ps 106:48 is not part of the psalm, but an addition to mark the close of the fourth book. "Everyone" certainly does not agree that these doxologies were inserted intentionally to break up the Psalter into five divisions.34 Some consider the present fivefold division a late development which utilized doxologies already present in the text.

Even if the fivefold division is assumed, it is not necessary that the doxologies are additions to their respective psalms. It is possible that these particular psalms were chosen precisely because they already possessed suitable doxologies. This might explain the considerable degree of variation in form and content of the doxologies from book to book. Such variation

32 Ibid., 167-68. 33 James A. Sanders, "Cave 11 Surprises," 287. 34 While Sigmund Mowinckel admits the possibility that psalms bearing such doxologies

were seized upon by the editor(s) of the Psalter as indications of book-divisions, he denies that the original conjunction of doxology and psalm came about for this purpose. "The concluding doxologies . . . are connected with the use of each psalm in the temple service . . . and were not added by the collectors as 'concluding formulas' for the separate collections. . . ." {The Psalms in Israel's Worship [Oxford: Blackwell, 1962] 2. 193,197. See also the comments of M. Dahood, Psalms I, xxx.

634 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 47, 1985

could easily have been eliminated if the doxologies were editorial additions without a previous history. Consequently, if these doxologies are integral parts of their psalms, then the appearance of Ps 106:48 in 1 Chr 16:36 tells us nothing about the date for the fixation of the fourth book of the Psalter. It seems then that Skehan's insights, while suggestive, are not ulti­mately compelling.

Skehan has expressed his opinion on HQPs a in a number of articles. His argument is multi-pronged and consists of the following points: (1) From internal considerations it is possible to show that HQPsa is a "liturgical" collection in honor of David and cannot, therefore, be canonical. (2) Evi­dence indicates that 1 lQPsa is temporally subsequent to the masoretic Psalter and dependent on its arrangement. (3) By its dependence on the canonical arrangement, HQPsa admits the authority ofthat collection and is subject to it.

In response to the first point, it is true that the compositions included in 1 lQPsa cols. 15-17, do have a decidedly liturgical cast. To Psalm 136 with its repeated refrain ky lcwlm hsdw is added the Qumran version of Psalm 145, expanded by the repeated refrain brwk Yhwh wbrwk Smw lcwlm wcd after each stich. Yet Skehan is no clearer than Talmon or Goshen-Gottstein in explaining why liturgical interest should preclude the canonicity of a text. Clearly the canonical Psalter is itself a liturgical collection and evidences many liturgical interests in the arrangement of its individual psalms. As examples one need only consider Psalm 136 and its refrain mentioned above, as well as the obvious liturgical arrangement of Psalms 145-150, which concludes the whole Psalter with a paean of praise in response to David's exhortation: "My mouth will speak the praise of Yhwh, and let all flesh bless his holy name forever and ever" (Ps 145:21). This and other examples of such practice in the masoretic Psalter suggest that liturgical arrangement or use cannot of itself be considered evidence of the noncanonical nature of 1 lQPsa.

According to Skehan, the fact that the noncanonical hymns do not appear until the twenty-third column of HQPsa and are then dispersed among eleven of the last fourteen of the canonical psalms indicates both the dependence of the scroll on the canonical arrangement and the secondary nature of the apocryphal compositions.35 While there is no denying the facts of the scroll's arrangement, it does seem to me that the severe disarrange­ment of the canonical psalms throughout 1 lQPsa undermines Skehan's claims of dependence. Eleven of the last forty-four canonical psalms are completely omitted (Psalms 106,108,110-117), while the position of at least thirteen others (Psalms 109, 118, 147, 146, 148, 119, 145, 139, 93, 133, 144, 140, and

Patrick W. Skehan, "Qumran and Old Testament Criticism," 169.

THE QUMRAN PSALMS SCROLL RECONSIDERED 635

134) completely contradicts the canonical order. Again, Skehan does not convincingly demonstrate that the late appearance of these apocryphal psalms is evidence of the scroll's dependence on the masoretic Psalter.

Skehan thinks that the apocryphal psalms were composed, in all cases, later than the canonical psalms among which they are dispersed.36 This would serve to further emphasize the secondary nature of 1 lQPsa. However, this assumption is questionable on several grounds. First, there are many who support a late date—some as late as the Maccabean period (167-140 B.C.)—for at least some of the canonical psalms.37 While this is far from conclusive, it at least clouds the issue considerably. Further, Luhrmann argues persuasively that all these texts are products of "late wisdom" and as such were written down no later than the end of the third century B.C.—some forty years before the Maccabean period and almost 250 years before 1 lQPsa

was written or copied in its present form.38

In fact, it is not the actual antiquity of these texts which is of primary importance here, but the presumed antiquity from the compiler's viewpoint. A late date of composition would present no barrier to acceptance as canon­ical as long as (1) the canonical collection was not closed and (2) the psalms' origin was not so recent as to have been known by the collector. If, as Luhrmann suggests, these apocryphal psalms were composed by the end of the third century B.C., sufficient time would have elapsed to allow the origins of these texts to have become obscured.

Along this line, William W. Hallo, in a discussion of authorship in Sumero-Akkadian literary works, concludes that authority is indicated by antiquity of authorship, with highest authority reflected by attribution to the deity. According to Hallo, there is an increasing tendency to assign authors to works which have assumed authority within the community. This ascrip­tion may function either to indicate the actual author of the text when known or to fix an anonymous text in the historical period to which the imputed author belongs.39 The implications for 1 lQPsa are obvious, especially if the intent of "David's Compositions" is to claim Davidic authorship for all the psalms of the scroll, as Sanders suggests. The effect would be to recognize

36 Ibid. 37 The dating issue is thoroughly considered by most introductions; see also Avi Hurwitz,

The Identification of Post-Exilic Psalms by Means of Linguistic Criteria (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1966), Hebrew.

38 D. Lührmann, "Ein Weisheitspsalm aus Qumran (llQPsa XVIII)," Ζ AW SO (1968) 93, 97.

3 9 William W. Hallo, "New Viewpoints on Cuneiform Literature," IEJ 2 (1962) 13-26; "On the Antiquity of Sumerian Literature," JAOS 83 (1963) 167-76; "Toward a History of Sumerian Literature," 181-203.

636 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 47, 1985

the authority of these apocryphal compositions, whose own origins had become shrouded by time, by relating them to the person of David. The result indicates the compiler's conviction that they were ancient documents worthy of acceptance, regardless of our own subsequent evaluation.

Analysis of the structure and content of 1 lQPs a leads Skehan to believe that the scroll never contained the missing first two-thirds of the canonical collection. The position of Psalm 101 (the first extant composition in the scroll) at the right margin of the top line of its fragment suggests to Skehan the beginning of a new scroll, not a continuation. Since Psalm 101 does not correspond to one of the five book-divisions, but is the first of the last fifty psalms of the canonical collection, he concludes that 1 lQPs a is an artificial expansion of these canonical compositions and never included a more exten­sive collection.40

One cannot question the evidence of the scroll. Psalm 101 does begin the first line of the column preserved in fragment A and this fragment may possibly represent the first column of the scroll. However, there is no way to be certain that additional columns did not precede fragment A or that there never were additional scrolls containing the remaining psalms of the canoni­cal Psalter. The evidence of the scrolls does not permit a decision either way.

Skehan further suggests that the position of the "Last Words of David" (from 2 Sam 23:7) immediately following Psalms 149-150 and preceding the prose catalog ("David's Compositions") is intended to represent the climax of 1 lQPs a. Psalms 151A and Β were included after this catalog because they were known to be "outside the number" of canonical psalms (as the LXX indicates).41 Skehan fails, however, to answer adequately two objections to this claim. (1) Why is it necessary to distinguish Psalms 151A and Β in this manner in a collection which does not presume to be canonical (according to Skehan) and in which "apocryphal" compositions have already been included without distinction? Skehan provides no answer. (2) Why are canonical Psalms 140 and 134 also written after what Skehan considers the conclusion of the scroll? In reply, he has weakly suggested that they were "accidentally" omitted previously and the error was not discovered until after the "conclu­sion" was written. Consequently they had to be written immediately follow­ing the conclusion. But this explanation could apply equally well to Psalms 151A and B, which are in no way distinguished from these two canonical psalms which immediately precede. Again, Skehan's argument is not con­vincing unless one assumes from the outset precisely what he attempts to prove: that these compositions are secondary, apocryphal psalms.

4 0 Patrick W. Skehan, "Qumran and Old Testament Criticism," 169-70. 4 1 Ibid., 170.

THE QUMRAN PSALMS SCROLL RECONSIDERED 637

As further evidence of the dependence of HQPsa on the canonical arrangement, Skehan cites the following data from the scroll.

(1) The Syr hmclwt psalms argue for a canonical Psalter. The occurrence of Psalms 120-132 (the first thirteen Syr hmclwt psalms) in their canonical order, along with the retention in Psalm 133 (though separated from the rest) of the characteristic superscription, can only be explained, says Skehan, by dependence on the canonical Psalter. At the most, however, this indicates the priority of the hmclwt collection and not of the whole Psalter. In fact, the detachment of Psalms 133 and 134 (from the group and from each other) would seem to demand the conclusion that this group was not yet so firmly fixed that the compiler was constrained to avoid any alteration. Instead, this arrangement in 1 lQPsa might support the gradual development of individ­ual groups of psalms, which only later came together to form the canoni­cal Psalter.42

(2) The expansion of Ps 146:9 on the basis of Ps 145:9,12 indicates an awareness of the prior juxtaposition of the two psalms (presumably in the canonical collection). But this expansion is also based on Ps 33:8.43 Does Skehan suggest that Psalms 146 and 33 were once juxtaposed? Without prior knowledge of the canonical arrangement, this suggestion would never have been made. Even if it could be shown beyond doubt that juxtaposition is indicated, there is no evidence to suggest whether these psalms came together inside or outside of the canonical collection. There is no evidence that neces­sitates the prior existence of the whole canonical Psalter.

(3) The aerostatic Psalm 145 is defective in its canonical version. This defect is supplied in 1 lQPsa by an addition in which the divine name Dëlôhîm is employed rather than Yhwh as elsewhere in the psalm. Skehan concludes that the psalm was taken from the canonical text and clumsily repaired.44

There is still no proof of dependency here. All that can be said with certainty is that the LXX, 1 lQPsa, and the canonical Psalter all seem to know the same defective Hebrew Vorlage of this psalm. Each has dealt with the defect in its own way. The canon retains the defective psalm. The LXX supplies the defective verse using kyrios = Yhwh (contrary to the Psalms Scroll but consonant with the rest of the psalm itself). HQPs* also supplies the defect, but employs ^ëlôhîm, which contrasts with the regular usage of Yhwh through­out the rest of the psalm (and may have been intended to call attention to the secondary nature of the addition).

42 Otto Eissfeldt, Introduction, 293-94. 43 James A. Sanders, Dead Sea Psalms Scroll, 37. Patrick W. Skehan ("Qumran and Old

Testament Criticism," 171) omits any reference to Ps 33:8. 4 4 Patrick W. Skehan, ibid., 170-71.

638 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 47, 1985

(4) Skehan originally felt that the "Hymn to the Creator" (HQPs*, col. 26) was composed as a "pendant" to Psalms 149-150 and, as such, was a sectarian document of the Qumran community. This obviously liturgical arrangement (Psalms 149-150 + "Hymn") stands opposed to the opening psalm of the scroll (Psalm 101) as "end to beginning" and serves to conclude a limited, liturgical collection.45 While he has subsequently modified his opinion of the origin of this grouping and now admits that it is most likely much earlier (second century B.C.) in provenance, he still claims that this arrangement is understandable only if, at that time, Psalm 150 was the end of "an established Psalm collection which was even then not open-ended."46

In response, one might accept Skehan's proposal of this unit's second-century origin and its liturgical nature without being constrained to accept the exis­tence of a fixed Psalter at that date. Indeed, one might affirm the association of Psalms 149 and 150 or even of the whole "final Hallel" (Psalms 146-150) without affirming a closed Psalter. The existence of groups of psalms (even extensive groupings such as Psalms 120-132 or 146-150) does not prove the existence of the collection in which they were later embedded. In this light, Skehan's conclusions regarding the dependence of 1 lQPsa on the canonical arrangement are not ultimately convincing. If, as he suggests, this grouping was used during the second century B.C. for the purposes of public prayer, this proves nothing about the canonical Psalter; the suggestion touches on only this particular unit.47 Skehan must also resort to some "fancy footwork" to explain the presence of so many compositions after this climactic unit.48

In retrospect, the review of these various arguments regarding the nature of HQPsa makes it clear that, in reality, there are three separate issues involved: canonicity, authority, and priority. The following comments would seem pertinent to these three issues.

Canonicity

As REGARDS CANONICITY, the following points should be noted. (1) "Canon­ical" does not necessarily imply "closed." See my remarks above regarding the plausibility of an "open-ended" canon. (2) "Fixation of form" does not necessarily imply "canonical." It is possible that a canonical work could have once existed (prior to its "canonization") in a fixed form, but without the exclusive authority conferred by the ultimate closure of the canon. One must

Idem, "A Liturgical Complex in 1 lQPsa," CBQ 35 (1973) 202-5. Idem, "Qumran and Old Testament Criticism," 171-72. Idem, "Liturgical Complex," 202-5. Idem, "Qumran and Old Testament Criticism," 171.

THE QUMRAN PSALMS SCROLL RECONSIDERED 639

distinguish the fixation of the Psalter in its present form from the triumph of this particular arrangement of psalms over all competitors. Consequently, even if it were possible to prove that the Psalter assumed its final form in the fourth century B.C. (which is doubtful), that would be insufficient reason to assume its exclusive claim to authority after that date. (3) "Canonicity" of a document can be satisfactorily determined only by (a) statements to that effect or to the contrary (such statements are only authoritative for those making them and do not preclude the possibility of competing opinions—as, e.g., in the case of the "truncated canon" of Marcion and the reaction of the early Church Fathers); or by (b) evidence of usage consonant with such authority.49 Neither of the above is available for 1 lQPsa at Qumran. Conse­quently, it will be necessary to leave open the question whether or not the scroll ever functioned with exclusive authority at Qumran or elsewhere.

Authority

As REGARDS AUTHORITY, the following points should be noted. (1) "Author­ity" does not imply ultimate inclusion in the "closed canon." This is clearly pointed out by the early Church Fathers' citation of apocryphal texts as Scripture. Obviously these texts were "authoritative" to those citing them, but were not ultimately part of the closed canon of the church. (2) "Author­ity" attributed to a single composition does not extend necessarily to a whole collection. In this regard, a collection of psalms must be viewed differently from a work whose disparate elements have been edited into a connected whole, obscuring the original boundaries of the units in the process (as in the Pentateuch).50 For this reason the presence of "canonical" psalms in 1 lQPsa

does not necessarily extend authority to the apocryphal compositions ranged alongside them. (3) "Authority" attributed to all the individual compositions of a collection does not necessitate the acceptance of the authority of the arrangement demonstrated in that collection. As a result, even if all the "apocryphal" compositions of 1 lQPsa could be shown to be "authoritative," one would still not be justified in declaring their arrangement (i.e., 1 lQPsa)

49 Sid Z. Leiman, Canonization, 15-16 and n. 35; Robert Gordis, "Quotations as a Liter­ary Usage in Biblical, Oriental and Rabbinic Literature," HUCA 22 (1949) 157-219; "Quotations in Wisdom Literature," JQR 30 (1939-40) 123-47; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, "The Use of Explicit Old Testament Quotations in Qumran Literature and in the New Testament," NTS 1 (1960-61) 297-333.

50 James A. Sanders, "Cave 11 Surprises," 294: "It must be remembered that the Psalter cannot be viewed in the same way other biblical books are viewed in the question of canoniza­tion. Each psalm is an independent entity and has its own existence in a way narratives, oracles, and even proverbs do not have within the book where they are located."

640 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 47, 1985

authoritative. Unless an alteration of order were explicitly prohibited, it would seem feasible to alter the arrangement of the individual psalms in relation to one another without affecting the authority of the individual items. (4) "Authority" can be determined only by direct statements to that effect or by evidence of usage consonant with authority.51

Priority

As REGARDS PRIORITY, the following points should be noted. (1) "Prior­ity" of a collection does not preclude the "authority" of another, dependent collection. A clear example of this is the work of the Chronicler. While subsequent to and dependent on the Books of Kings, while containing mate­rials not included in the earlier work, and while evidencing a different theo­logical framework, the Books of the Chronicler have also functioned with "authority" and have even found their way into the "closed canon." So it appears that different arrangement, content, and even theological motiva­tion would not necessarily prevent a collection such as HQPs* from ulti­mately being considered "authoritative." (2) Evidence of priority is extremely difficult to ascertain, since many data can frequently work both ways.52 For this reason Skehan cites the occurrence in HQPsa of Psalms 120-132, 133, and 134 as evidence of the priority of the canonical arrangement and of the dependence of the Qumran Scroll. Yet Sanders points to this same group of psalms as evidence that, at this stage of development, this group of psalms had not yet assumed the "fixed" arrangement known in the canon. (3) "Priority" of a single composition (or even a group of psalms) does not necessarily imply the priority of the whole collection. Thus, if Psalms 120-134 do repre­sent a collection prior to 1 lQPsa, this does not prove the prior existence of the whole canonical Psalter.

Conclusion

IT SEEMS THAT these three issues—canonicity, authority, and priority— continue to defy final resolution. We are left, then, with several possible explanations of the relation of 1 lQPsa to the canonical Psalter. These options are presented schematically on the opposite page.

See references for Robert Gordis and Joseph A. Fitzmyer in note 49. James A. Sanders, "The Qumran Psalms Scroll Reviewed," 97.

NO

Û ω e* ω Q

o υ ω o*

s υ C/3

S < c/3

CL,

< S D α ω PC H

1. 1 lQPsa is a dependent "Library Edition"

common tradition MT fixed of psalm materials, > and canonized some relatively in fixed 4th cent. B.C.

HQPsä develops as liturgical collection 2d cent. B.C.

2. 1 lQPs*1 is an intermediate form prior to fixation of the Psalter

common tradition of psalm materials, some relatively fixed

fixation of Psalms 1-100

3. 1 lQPsa is a competing text tradition

common tradition of psalm materials, some relatively fixed

fixation of Psalms 1-100

HQPsaas evidence of fluid final third part

sectanan -> withdrawal leads -

to development of competing traditions

MT remains -> official

text

Canonization of -> leaner

text recognized as MT

leaner MT becomes official text

more inclusive HQPsa, "dead end" at Qumran

642 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 47, 1985

The importance of HQPsa should not be underestimated. If either of the last two options is true, the scroll is an important witness to the fluidity of Psalter traditions at a relatively late date. Elsewhere, in a comparison of data supporting and contradicting the masoretic arrangement of the psalms, I have shown that evidence of variation is very limited in Psalms 1-100.53 By contrast, variation is significantly more abundant in the last third of the Psalter. In addition, the correlation of incidences of support and contradic­tion with the age of the Qumran-psalms manuscripts yields results consistent with the theory of gradual stabilization of the Psalter from beginning to end, as proposed by Sanders.

Finally, it would be of particular interest to investigate Sanders's sugges­tions concerning the historical relationship between the Jerusalem and Qum­ran communities and its effect on the "shape" of their respective Psalter traditions. If he is correct, it would seem that the departure of the sectarians from Jerusalem to Qumran (ca. 150 B.C.?) and the subsequent, more inclu­sive expansion of the last third of the Psalter evident at Qumran may well have provided the impetus for the final stabilization process, which resulted by the end of the first century A.D. in the closed canonical Psalter.

53 Gerald H. Wilson, "The Qumran Psalms Manuscripts and the Consecutive Arrange­ment of Psalms in the Masoretic Psalter," CBQ 45 (1983) 377-88.

^ s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.