Stirring the Pot: Do You Preach the Superscriptions of the Psalms?
— Monday, January 5th, 2009 —
For some reason unbeknownst to me, English translations of the Psalms decided not to number the superscriptions of the Psalms. This breaks with other printed practice, since the superscriptions are numbered in printed editions of the Hebrew text as well as the Greek and Latin translations. The verse numbers are not original to the authors of the individual Psalms, nor are they original to the collection of the Psalter. The verse references were added in the middle ages. For some reason, early English translators decided not to number the superscriptions, and they remain unnumbered down to the present. The problem with not numbering the superscriptions is that it gives the impression that they don’t belong with the biblical text.
Not only do the superscriptions go unnumbered, translations often put them in a different font, whether in small caps (such as in the ESV) or a smaller font (such as in the NASB and NIV), but one way or another the superscriptions are marked off as being somehow different from the rest of the text of the Psalm. This is fine, as long as it doesn’t result in the superscription being ignored.
My fear is that many serious students pay as much attention to the superscriptions as they do to the boldface subheadings some editors of modern translations have inserted into the text of the Psalms, that is, none! Concluding that the “real text” of the Psalms is not what the editors have added, serious students skip straight to verse 1, ignoring all that irrelevant prefatory text up top.
Some teachers of the Bible have also presented theological or literary arguments against interpreting the Psalms in light of the superscriptions. Worse still, some modern scholars have invented a whole set of supposed “genres” for Psalms, then their labels become procrustean beds on which the Psalms are made to lie. So instead of interpreting the texts as they stand, taking into account all the textual evidence present, they bring in a controlling theory of how the Psalms are to be classified, then they read the Psalms in light of their theory.
I have no interest in dissecting these arguments except to say this: the choice to ignore the superscriptions of the Psalms is nothing less than a radical text critical decision to exclude from consideration evidence that is in the text. We have no manuscript of the Psalms that lacks these superscriptions. Let me say that another way: every manuscript of the Psalms in our possession has the superscriptions. It is true that there are places where the superscriptions vary from one another, just as there are textual variants all over the rest of the Bible. But we have no warrant at the level of textual evidence to ignore the superscriptions of the Psalms.
These Psalms are not abstract installments in the world’s poetic registry. No, these Psalms are to be interpreted in the context of the canon, and the superscriptions are there to guide readers as to where the Psalms fit in the canonical story.
So here’s my conclusion: Are you a world-renowned Old Testament textual critic who has consciously decided that on the basis of your analysis of the manuscript evidence you cannot accept the superscriptions as belonging to the inspired, original text? Fine. Don’t preach them. But if that isn’t why you don’t preach the superscriptions, then my question for you is this: what reason can you give for ignoring part of the inspired text?
Preach the word! All of it. . .
What do you mean buy “genres.” Are you talking about forms such as lament, praise, or types such as wisdom, royal, etc.?
Charles,
Thanks for your note. Yes. I think that labelling the Psalms with these kinds of terms takes us away from the categories that the Psalter has given to us. . . In my view, the whole of the Psalter has a royal character, associated as it is with David and his life, and if by “wisdom” we mean something like “Torah-focused,” then the Psalter is also punctuated by key statements of the gift of Torah–Pss 1, 19, and 119, for instance. Within this, I think the 5 books tell a story . . . hopefully I’ll have more to say on that story soon in my book on the Center of Biblical Theology.
Hope this helps!
JMH
Interesting you should mention it. Christianity.com has the ESV version posted without the superscriptions–something I might not have noticed if you not drawn our attention to them. I find myself missing that bit of context and wishing the website had not omitted them.
Very good stir in the pot, indeed! I have not used the superscriptions much in preaching, maybe only as a reference when preaching on Psalm 51. However, I have noticed that Spurgeon did use the superscripts in many of his sermons from the Psalms as did many of our predecessors. They do offer a lot of insight into the psalm itself and give some valuable background information. Thank you for your insight. Many preachers might be like myself, ignorant of the background of the superscriptions. I had assumed since they were printed in italics in most of the Bibles I have read, they were not part of the inspired writ, but were added by translators for clarity. Thank you for clearing that up.
Do you think that the Psalter as a whole is inspired, or that only the individual Psalms, by the original artists (e.g., David, Solomon, etc.), are inspired? Obviously no one would deny the latter, but would anyone hold to the latter at the exclusion of the former? If it’s the latter, then the superscriptions wouldn’t necessarily, and probably wouldn’t, be inspired.
I guess that you would argue that the Psalter’s inspired because the Jewish tradition honoured the document as a whole (as the text critical evidence would suggest).
I think the whole book is inspired, superscriptions and all, and I think that it was arranged by a prophet who would have been recognized as inspired . . .
Blessings!
JMH
Once last year when teaching Psalm 1 I commented on its lack of a superscription and a lively discussion followed with the men of my senior adult Sunday school class: “You mean David didn’t write all of the Psalms?” Even when I had a man read Psalm 90, “A prayer of Moses, the man of God,” I was told, “That’s just David writing about Moses!”
Sunday should be interesting. Psalm 42 is attributed to the “Sons of Korah.”
Great topic.
Do you think that the canon of the OT is authoritative in the same way as that of the Psalter is?
If you mean “canon,” the answer is yes. If you mean “the order of the books of the canon,” the answer has to be no. . . not least b/c it probably wasn’t possible to bind all the books of the OT together until the rise of the codex in the early centuries AD.
What they had before that was most likely a list. I think the order of the books on that list was probably significant, but what was on the list and what wasn’t was the real issue.
Great question!
JMH
Thanks for continuing to respond to my comments.
That actually wasn’t the answer I was expecting. I was expecting more of a Sproulian answer like, a belief in a fallible canon of infallible OT books (though I could be completely out to lunch using the phrase “fallible canon of infallible books” since I’ve never read RC Sproul write that, just other’s attribute it to him).
So, does your view of the OT canon impact your theory of the canon of the whole Bible? Do you think that we have an infallible canon?
It’s neat talking about canon with you after you posted a month ago on Beale’s view of inerrancy since I think that canon and inerrancy have some similar overtones.
ew, typo–that’s embarrassing “other’s” instead of “other”
more embarrassing doing it twice I meant “others” instead of “other’s” and “other”
Pete,
I think we have a clearly defined canon of 66 books that were recognized by the church to be inspired by the Holy Spirit and therefore inerrant.
Blessings!
JMH