I read through the Hebrew text of Psalm 16 (LXX’s 15) and consulted a textual commentary that cites Dahood, since the meaning and context of this Psalm is so purloined and in dispute. He takes the position that this Psalm is written from the perspective of a Canaanite recently converted to Yahwism. From this context, I can see that the “holy ones” of v3 are referring to the gods worshipped in the past; and I can see that this entire verse could be interpreted not as present, but Perfect (i.e., these other gods “have been noble for me,” and “in whom was all my delight”). I wish to stress this “logical conclusion” this is my understanding, not Dahood’s. This seems acceptable, since v4 shifts to imperfect (ie. Future), where choosing these same “other gods” can only multiply one’s sorrows, and at v5 the Psalmist declares he will have no part of this option. This interpretation becomes questionable and problematic in light of v6, where the Psalmist says he has a “goodly heritage” (NRSV), unless one makes use of words playing on “land possession” metaphor (“portion,” “lot,” and yes “heritage”). I read this from Brueggemann and Bellinger (2014), and it struck me as clever but not particularly essential to understanding the Psalmist’s intent – that is, until one plays with the idea that, for the remaining of this Psalm, the metaphor continues by shaping Yahweh’s counsel as what “Possession of land” is: I would submit that this metaphor continues by keeping in mind this land was once Canaan’s but became Israel’s.
Posted on: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 19:58:39 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015