II SAMUEL 22 (PSALM 18)

 

                                    II Samuel 22 (1994) 

Chapter 22 of Second Samuel presents us with a rare example of a large passage of Scripture which is also found in the Psalter. But the two versions are not exactly identical. Therefore scholars have treated this situation as fertile ground for trying out their various theories to account for the minor differences between the two.

Context

But before going any further, it is instructive to consider the literary context of II Samuel 22.

Figure 1: Echoes of Saul’s Reign (II Sam. 21-24)

    A. Nation afflicted with famine because of blood-guilt;

            B. Curse removed by Gibeonites hanging Saul’s sons (21:1-14)

                   

        C. David’s mighty men: battle with Philistines (21:15-22)

        D. David’s song of praise (II Sam. 22:1-32)

                                D'. David’s royal psalm (23:1-7)

        C'. David’s mighty men: battles with Philistines (23:8-39)

    A'. Nation afflicted with pestilence because of census;

            B'. Curse removed after offerings to God are made (ch. 24)

Both central sections are poetic compositions associated with David placed in the middle of an extended narrative passage. Additionally tying the two together is the image of God as a “rock” found at the beginnings of D (22:2) and D' (23:3).

Divisions

Determination of the internal structure of Section D begins with its breakdown into individual units. And here we run into various opinions expressed in the scholarly literature:

DeClaisse-Walford: The chapter breaks into two equal parts with the limits of the first half being identified by the inclusio “rock, refuge, shield” (vv. 2-3)... “shield, refuge, rock” (vv. 31-32). Her more detailed breakdown into sub-units includes: 1-4; 5-7; 8-16; 17-20; 21-25; 26-31; 32-37; 38-46; and 47-51 with both 17-20 and 38-46 dealing with the rescue itself.

On the other hand, NRSV divides II Samuel 22 into the following sub-sections: verses 1-6; 7; 8-16; 17-20; 21-25; 26-31; 32-43; 44-46; 47-49; and 50-51. As you can see, this division is not at all consistent with that of DeClaisse-Walford.

McCarter feels that the major division is between vv. 1-20 and vv. 29-51. “The intervening material in vv. 21-28 consists of an assertion of the psalmist's innocence and purity (vv. 21-25) followed by the quotation of 'an old gnomic quatrain'...(vv. 26-27) and a brief reference to Yahweh's just reversal of human fortunes (v. 28).” But in his Anchor Bible translation of II Samuel 22, he breaks it up into the following smaller paragraphs: 1-3; 4-25; 26-28; 29-30; 31-35; 36-37; 38-46; and 47-51.

However, Anderson, Schmidt and Taylor feel it is a composite poem consisting of a lament for a falsely accused man (vv. 1-31) and a royal thanksgiving (vv. 32-51). And Anderson outlines the smaller sub-units as follows: 1-3; 4-7; 8-16; 17-20; 21-31; 32-46; and 47-51.

The Jerusalem Bible also recognizes a basically two-part structure to the poem but divides it instead into verses 1-28 (a thanksgiving prayer) and verses 32-51 (a royal victory song). Similarly, Baigent identifies the two major units as verses 1-31 and 32-51.

Structure

With this lack of a scholarly consensus, I felt free to throw my hat in the ring also, using as my main guides not only the thematic changes within II Samuel 22 but also looking for an overall symmetrical arrangement to the whole poem. The results are shown in Figure 2.

                                            Figure 2: The Organization of II Samuel 22

    1. Prayer for salvation (1-4)

            2. Figurative distress (5-6)

                    3. I called and He saved me (7)

                            4. God's figurative actions (8-17)

 

                                    5. God's literal action (18-20)

                                            6. David's righteousness (21-25)

                                            6'. God's loyalty to the righteous (26-28)

                                    5'. David's actions through God's help (29-41)

 

                    3'. They called but no one answered (42)

                            4'. Figurative victory (43)

            2'. David raised above them (44-46)

    1'. Prayer of praise (47-51)

Note the close family resemblance between this literary structure and that of chapters 21-24 as a whole shown in Figure 1. Helping to confirm this architecture are (1) the inclusio of unit 6 by repetition of “The LORD rewarded me for my righteousness” at verses 21 and 25, (2) the presence of “wide/broad place” in 5 and 5', and (3) “blameless” and “wicked/perverse” in 6 and 6'.

Priority

Psalm 18 has the identical structure as shown in Figure 2 except that the verse numbers are all one verse less than found in II Samuel 22. But the next logical question to ask is which version is the original one. And here again, there is really no scholarly agreement. Three possibilities have been proposed:

Psalm 18 is the earlier version.

Tsumura mentions only two possibilities: (1) Psalm 18 was written in standard Hebrew spelling but the writer of II Samuel reproduced it from memory or dictation using phonetic spelling or (2) the author of Samuel copied Psalm 18 as it was written in standard Hebrew, but all the spellings in the collection of Psalms were later “modernized.”

II Samuel 22 is the earlier version.

E.J. Young studies the small variants between the two and concludes that II Samuel 22 is the earlier version, with Psalm 18 making changes to increase “the intimacy in the relationship between the implied author and the deity.”

Similarly, McCaw and Motyer say that Psalm 18 is “a version of 2 Sa. 22, slightly revised to make it suitable for general use.”

“Generally, the morphology of Psalm 18 is viewed as being later.” (deClaisse-Walford)

Both passages are drawn from the same original poem.

Chisholm feels that both versions preserve portions of the original reading and both make interpretive changes to it.

McCarter: “there are no structural or compositional differences between the two, and it is certain that they stem from a single original poem. The several divergences that do exist are scribal in origin and correspond to the categories of change that take place in the transmission of any ancient text.”

Evidence from the Literary Structure

It is intriguing to use Figure 2 as a test to distinguish between the various discrepancies to see which one of the two versions we have today adheres best to its organization. The assumption I will make in such an examination is that the original divinely-inspired version possessed the sort of symmetry found throughout the Bible, both OT and NT. However, the author of II Samuel or the compiler of the Psalter may not have recognized all the subtleties of such literary arrangements and therefore inadvertently disrupted some of the parallel patterns present in the original.

I will not list by any means all of the minor differences between Psalm 18 and II Samuel 22, but here are a few in which literary analysis may actually help distinguish which, if either, of the versions may have altered the text for the worse. My assumption, which may be false, is that later scribes were unlikely to have been aware of the complex ways God directed the pens of the biblical authors to create such masterpieces of literary construction. I feel this is a justified assumption since it has only been in about the last 50 years or so that Bible scholars have begun to recognize that same fact.

II Samuel 22:1 The words “the servant of the Lord” describing David in the first verse of Psalm 18 are missing here. But their inclusion would certainly provide an appropriate contrast to the closing section of II Samuel 22 in which this same servant is exalted above his enemies. Such reversals of fortune are, of course, common in Jesus' later teachings.  In addition, M'Caw and Motyer point out that this missing phrase “is a highly honorable one and...almost always applied to Moses or used prophetically of the Messiah.” That latter possibility fits well with the final verse of II Samuel 22 with its reference to God showing his steadfast love to his anointed (i.e. “messiah”). Thus, Psalm 18 provides the closest adherence to the structure of Figure 2.

II Samuel 22:1-2 Between these two verses, the Psalm 18 parallel adds, “I love you, O Lord, my strength.” Looking at Figure 2, you can see that this reference to David's love of God is matched in the corresponding ending to the chapter by God's love of David (sections 1 and 1'). This is likely to be a purposeful comparison in light of the fact that the word “love” only appears in these two places in the chapter. Thus, in this first example, Psalm 18 would appear to preserve the original version of the poem better than II Samuel 22.

II Samuel 22:3 At the very end of this long verse is the line “You delivered me from violence.” But in this case, it is Psalm 18 which deletes these words entirely. From a structural viewpoint, a reference to God's “deliverance” here in section 1 is matched very well with “You delivered me from the violent” in section 1' (v. 49). Thus, we would have to say that it is II Samuel 22 which has the best claim to adhering to the original or being the original version.

II Samuel 22:7 This verse in section 3 has its counterpart in verse 42 (section 3'). Psalm 18 has the word “cry” in both places whereas II Samuel 22 has “call” instead in v. 7. Therefore, on this occasion it is the Psalter's version which provides the best verbal match.

II Samuel 22:29 This verse reads “You are my lamp, O LORD.” But the Hebrew of Psalm 18 at this point says instead: “You light my lamp.” I would have to say that the metaphorical language of II Samuel here (in section 5') fits better with the similarly metaphorical construction “the LORD was my stay.” in the parallel section 5 (verse 19)

II Samuel 22:43 II Samuel reads “like the dust of the earth” whereas the same verse in Psalm 18 says, “like dirt in the face of the wind.” This is an ambiguous example since if we look to the parallel section II Samuel 22:8-17 we see both “earth” (v. 8) and “wind” (v. 11) in evidence, so either version provides a good match with the structure of Figure 2.

II Samuel 22:29-41 There is one final example that is telling, and it involves a literary technique unifying section 5' of Figure 2. Consider the almost symmetrical pattern formed by the repeated key words in this unit:

                                          Figure 3: Key Words in II Samuel 22:29-41

        girded (32)

                    feet (33a)

                    feet (33b)

                                hands (34a)

                                            arms (34b)

                                -------------

                     feet (36)

                     feet (38)

        girded (39)

All that is missing is a match for “hands” in verse 34a to make this perfectly symmetrical. But it turns out that Psalm 18 has “right hand” in the parallel verse to II Samuel 22:35, which completes the pattern. The most obvious implication is that the author of II Samuel 22 chose to delete that reference, and thus destroyed the carefully worked out symmetry of the original, captured in Psalm 18.

The conclusion from all of these contrary indications would appear to confirm the earlier mentioned contention of Chisholm: Both versions preserve portions of the original reading and both make interpretive changes to it. But perhaps such a literary analysis as briefly described above could help future scholars to better “reconstruct” the original version.