| |
Psalm 22 (LXX 21) and the Crucifixion of Jesus
Mark George Vitalis Hoffman
CHAPTER 7
Conclusions
The focus of this dissertation has been on the interpretation of Ps 22 and its
relationship to the NT narratives about the crucifixion of Jesus as Messiah. In Chapter 2
I expressed my dissatisfaction with most of the modern treatments of this issue which
locate the primary significance of Ps 22 in the psalm's plot and do not take seriously the
way Biblical texts were read and interpreted in antiquity.
My approach to the issue of Ps 22's significance began in Chapters 3 and 4 by surveying
the history of the interpretation of the psalm in antiquity. This survey included a
consideration of textual traditions of the psalm, its relationship to other texts within
the Hebrew Bible, its influence upon intertestamental literature (where special attention
was given to the Qumran writings, to the Syriac Apocryphal Psalms 152 and 153, and to the
Wisdom of Solomon), and its interpretation in the patristic and rabbinic literature.
I believe that the material in Chapters 3 and 4 which survey the history of the
interpretation of Ps 22 is of itself an important resource which will be valuable for
future scholarship. Besides the overall contribution of this part of my study with its
awareness of the ways Biblical texts were exegeted in antiquity, I would identify some
specific aspects of it which I believe are particularly interesting, significant, or
pioneering, namely: A) the conclusion that there probably was a pre-Masoretic Hebrew text
which did include the phrase "give heed to me" in Ps 22:2a (cf. §4.4.3), B) the
description of the relationship of Ps 71 to Ps 22 (summarized in §4.16.4) and its
importance as the first written, sustained reflection on Ps 22, C) the description of the
relationship of the Syriac Apocryphal Psalms 152 and 153 to Ps 22, especially in their use
of titles and their treatment of verse 2a (cf. §4.17), D) the description of the
relationship of Wis 2:12-20 and 5:1-8 to Ps 22, especially the Wisdom of Solomon's
description of the protagonist and the observations on its treatment of Ps 22, Ps 89, and
the so-called "Servant Songs" of Deutero-Isaiah (cf. §4.18), E) the study of
the treatment of Ps 22 in the rabbinic corpus and especially the conclusion that the
application of the psalm to Esther is likely a critical, post-NT response to its Christian
application to Jesus (cf. §4.19), and F) the comprehensive survey of the patristic
interpretations of Ps 22-Justin Martyr and Eusebius in particular-which runs throughout
Chapter 4.
On a more general level, the work in Chapter 4 was important for locating Ps 22 within
Israel's Scripture and identifying potential readings which were being derived from it.
Among the important trajectories of interpretation which I identified were the attribution
of the psalm to David as its author and the various designations of the psalm's
protagonist as a "child / servant (pai~j) of the
Lord" whose father is God, a "son of God," "righteous," a
"chosen one," a "devout one," a "poor one," a "needy
one," and a "servant" (db(). Nowhere in the
pre-Christian documents was Ps 22 ever interpreted as a messianic text. In the patristic
literature, however, the Davidic authorship of Ps 22 was emphasized, its messianic
character was affirmed, and the significant aspects of the potential readings of the psalm
were explored. Two other observations also were made which provide cautions about
overvaluing the role of Ps 22. First, it is significant that the potential application of
Ps 22:17c to Jesus' crucifixion was not attempted until Justin. Second, verses 23-32
(except for the reference to "brothers" in v. 23a) were virtually ignored until
Eusebius.
Having described both the starting points of the trajectories of interpretation of Ps
22 as well as their eventual outcomes in the patristic and rabbinic literature, I turned
in Chapters 5 and 6 to see how the NT uses of Ps 22 fit in between them. While pursuing
this larger goal, I again made some observations which are noteworthy, namely: A)
recognizing that Luke's description of the "eclipse" at Jesus' death was his
radically reinterpreted presentation of the cry of Ps 22:2a recorded in Mark (or Matthew;
cf. _6.4), B) describing the function of the reference to "hands and feet" in
Luke 24:39 and how it relates to Ps 22:17c as well as its possible implications for
historical reminiscences that Jesus had not been nailed in both his hands and feet (cf.
§5.11.2), C) demonstrating that the references to "brothers" in Heb 2:11-12,
Matt 28:10, and John 20:17 are all part of a tradition reflecting on Ps 22:23a in the
context of Jesus' resurrection (cf. §5.13.1), D) observing how 2 Tim 4:16-18 relates an
appropriate and broadly acceptable interpretation of Ps 22 which is notabe for its
non-messianic application at such a late date in the NT corpus (cf. §6.9), and E)
observing an increasing attention to and valuation of Ps 22 as it is presented in Matthew
and Mark, in Luke, in John, and finally in Hebrews (cf. §6.10).
Closer to the overall focus of this dissertation, the results from chapters 5 and 6
indicated that Ps 22 was not a significant text for Christological reflection in the
earliest, Pauline documents of the NT, and that even later on (as in 2 Timothy) it was not
interpreted solely as a messianic text. Details associated with Ps 22 were, however, part
of the early narrative recollections of the crucifixion of Jesus, but only in some of the
later NT writings (John and especially Hebrews) do we find the kind of exceptional
applications of the psalm to Jesus that would become more detailed and more typical in the
patristic period.
Where Ps 22 was applied to Jesus in the Gospels and Hebrews, it occurred in contexts
that included various designations of Jesus as "son of God," "the Christ
(of God)," "the Chosen One," "the King of Israel," or "the
King of the Jews." An important determination of this dissertation is that these
titles, perhaps even the title Christ, could be and were derivable from Ps 22 if they were
understood as applying to a son of God, a chosen one, or even a
(Davidic) king. Even within the NT itself we have evidence, 2 Tim 4:16-18 specifically,
for the persistence of such a generic application of the psalm. What is innovative about
the interpretation of Ps 22 in the the Gospels and Hebrews is that Ps 22 is uniquely
applied to Jesus who is exclusively confessed as the Son of God, the Chosen
One, the (Davidic) king of Israel who is the Christ.
I hasten to point out that such conclusions regarding the subject of Ps 22, even in the
generic sense, are not directly evident from the psalm itself. Instead, they are
conclusions reached through a careful study of Scripture which attends to shared words and
phrases to link Ps 22 with such passages as Ps 89 which speaks not only of the lamenter's
status as son of God but also describes the reproach of the Messiah, those passages in
Deutero-Isaiah which describe the suffering of God's servant / child, and the passages in
Jeremiah which highlight the uniquely called and chosen nature of God's agent. While these
conclusions are available though not inevitable, to claim that Ps 22 applies exclusively
to Jesus who fulfills all these titles in a unique way requires some other presupposition
or external impetus.
All these factors lead me to conclude: A) that it is not likely that Ps 22 provided the
initial frame around which the pre-Gospel Passion narratives were developed and B) that Ps
22 was not likely to have been inserted into the crucifixion narratives because of
its pre-established Christological or theological significance. Ps 22 simply was not
regarded as a messianic text nor was it unequivocally interpreted as being the psalm of
someone who was necessarily righteous in the pre-Christian period. Furthermore, some of
the textual difficulties left the interpretation of the psalm open to dispute and caused
the psalm to be more a source of contention than of consensus.
But if Ps 22 was not particularly attractive as a source for the construction of the
Passion narratives, it was valuable as a resource for reflection on the Passion of Jesus.
As I have noted in the previous paragraphs, there were a number of possible pre-Christian
interpretations of Ps 22 which had significant implications about the person to whom the
psalm applied, but none of them made unique claims about that person. I believe, however,
that it is these potentially valuable interpretations of Ps 22 which encouraged it to be included
and preserved in the passion narratives, and it was such potential readings that were
later explored by Christian exegetes who made increasingly more adamant claims about its
unique application to Jesus. That is, if one begins with the presupposition that Jesus is
the Messiah and that Ps 22 applies to Jesus, the psalm becomes an enlightening resource
for reflecting on the Scriptural necessity of the suffering and mocking which must be
endured by one who is confessed to be the Son of God, God's Chosen One, righteous, or the
Messiah King of Israel.[1]
- [1] One other possible avenue into a messianic reading of Ps 22 might be
through the identification of "the Son of God" (which is a more certain
implication derived from Ps 22) being extended to imply "Messiah." This
dissertation is not the place to explore this possibility, but cf. the comments by Juel (Messianic
Exegesis, 68); John J. Collins, "A Pre-Christian `Son of God' Among the Dead Sea
Scrolls," BR IX.3 (1993) 34-38, 57; and Richard N. Longenecker, The
Christology of Early Jewish Christianity (London: S.C.M., 1970) 93-99.
What I have accomplished in this dissertation, therefore, is to indicate how someone could
read Ps 22 as a messianic text, but I have not yet determined why someone should
read it so. I have explained how Ps 22 could be helpful in clarifying or supporting a
messianic reading, but I have not demonstrated why someone should turn to it rather than
to some other Scripture. To put it yet another way, an ancient reader of the Hebrew Bible
would not likely choose descriptions of suffering from Ps 22 to demonstrate that the
speaker was a distinguished and unique character. But if that reader were directed to
search in Ps 22 for some distinctive characteristics which could pertain to the psalm's
subject, it would be possible according to the rules of ancient Biblical exegesis to find
them. The most distinctive characteristic that would likely be claimed is that the
psalmist was a son of God in light of traditions shared with Ps 89 and Deutero-Isaiah.
The problem is that there needs to be some other stimulus to direct early Christian
attention to Ps 22 as a text which can help clarify the death of Jesus as the Messiah. At
this point, I find myself forced to consider `what really happened,' even though I have
tried to avoid this issue from the outset. It seems to me, however, that the simplest and
most reasonable explanation for why Ps 22 came to play an important role in the Passion
narratives is that Jesus actually cried out Ps 22:2a shortly before he died. More
precisely, some follower of Jesus who was an eyewitness to his crucifixion was convinced
that he or she heard Jesus speak these words. Despite their initial, seeming unsuitability
as the dying words of the one confessed to be the Messiah, early Christians were forced by
this conviction to search the Scriptures and determine its implications. That the
evangelists would bother to record the incident about the parting of Jesus' garments or
describe the mockery he endured in terms shaped by Ps 22 indicates the strength of this
conviction. To restate my claim, there is no outstanding reason for highlighting Ps 22 in
Jesus' passion except that it should have actually happened, and there is no outstanding
reason for preserving details related to Ps 22 except that the psalm has the potential for
being understood as a text pertaining to a son of God. Because of the presupposition that
Jesus was indeed the Messiah, the only innovative, interpretive claim made by the early
Christians was that Ps 22 was about the Son of God, and this claim was made as an
article of faith and exegetical possibility, not as an article of exegetical necessity.
It is impossible to `prove' this argument of historicity, and there are numerous
obstacles which need to be overcome to make it more plausible, but I nonetheless think
that it is the simplest accounting for the presence of Ps 22 in the Passion narratives.
Still, even if it could be historically verified that Jesus did indeed cry out Ps 22:2a
just before he died, we still could not presume to know what Jesus was actually thinking
of or intending when he said those words. Perhaps he only was using a customary or
proverbial saying to express his suffering. Perhaps he only was expressing a sense of
abandonment and used a phrase from Scripture without intending anything further. Perhaps
he was trying to indicate his solidarity with all those who share in his suffering.
Perhaps he merely provided an excuse for a lengthy dissertation! Or perhaps Jesus
intentionally was citing words from Scripture in order to direct his followers to search
those Scriptures and reflect on what it might mean for him to die as the crucified
Messiah.
|