Psalm 102 im Kontext des Vierten Psalmenbuches

Abstract

Psalm 102 im Kontext des Vierten Psalmenbuches, by Gunild Brunert. SBB 30. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1996. Pp. 328. DM 79,00 (paper). This work is an exhaustive study of Psalm 102 from the perspective of various approaches and methodologies. The first of three major divisions of the book deals with the history of the interpretation of this psalm. The history begins with early Judaism, the NT, the early church, the Middle Ages, and the Reformation. Then Brunert reviews the interpretation of Psalm 102 by historical critics from the eighteenth century till the present. From the nineteenth century on, she deals with particular scholars in detail. Commendably, she covers a goodly number of exegetes of various national origins. Her observation on the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries is that interpreters then stressed the questions of whether the psalm was that of an individual or the community and its date. Then Brunert treats Gunkel and those who reacted to him, some disagreeing with his view of Psalm 102's Sitz im Leben and others, his view of its Gattung. Finally, redaction-critical approaches are reviewed, which Brunert divides into canonical approaches and theological exegesis. From Gunkel on she includes critiques of many of the scholars. Her conclusion on past interpretation is that it has not settled the questions of the psalm's unity, its composition, or its dating. She commends the initial efforts to consider the place of Psalm 102 in its larger context. The second major division is a study of the psalm on its own. It begins with textual criticism, which Brunert defines as searching for the correct canonical text. Thus the only concern here is whether the MT has been transmitted accurately, not getting a more original text from the versions. She concludes that the MT of Psalm 102 is correct. Next comes a synchronic interpretation, which Brunert calls the poetic analysis. Here she divides the psalm into five sections and three single verses. She provides extensive observation of the many types of poetic devices used in the psalm and those which interrelate its sections. In addition she gives an exposition of the theological sense of each verse. She is to be commended in this poetic analysis for holding to her methodology and avoiding conclusions that move beyond it. One unfortunate feature is that she does not provide her translation of the psalm. It would be helpful to know how she understands difficult verses. One of Brunert's goals in the poetic analysis is to provide an objective basis for later diachronic interpretations. At its end she proceeds to these. Under source criticism she concludes that the original psalm consisted of w. 2-12, 25-27aa, 28b. A redactor added w. 13-24, 27aS28a, 29, and single words to w. 5 and 25. Later v. 1, a phrase in v. 14, and a word in v. 20 were added. Brunert's form-critical conclusions are that the original psalm was an individual lament, which she prefers to call an individual petition, and that the whole psalm can be considered a prayer text on the nature and effect of prayer. In this section her argument that v. 19 serves as a motivation for God's action and that it is derived from the vow in individual petitions seems unconvincing. Under tradition criticism Brunert contends that the original psalm is a wisdom composition reminiscent of Job and that the redactor's additions are in the tradition of Deutero-Isaiah. …