Skip Navigation

Journal of Semitic Studies 2005 50(2):297-320; doi:10.1093/jss/fgi039
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Sheveka, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The University of Manchester 2005. All rights reserved

A Trace of the Tradition of Diplomatic Correspondence in Royal Psalms

Avi Sheveka

Jerusalem

This paper suggests that the phrase {tav}{ayin}{nun}{mem} {lamed}{bet} {vav}{yod}{tav}{pe}{shin} {tav}{shin}{resh}{alef}{vav} (Ps. 21:2) reflects an idiom from the tradition of diplomatic correspondence (documented in EA9), that expresses a proper ‘brotherhood’ relationship between equal kings. Besides explaining the use of the hapax legomenon {tav}{shin}{resh}{alef} in this specific instance, this assumption gives us a key to explaining the fact that a variant of this word {tav}{shin}{resh}{yod} — appears in another psalm (Ps. 61:6) in a very similar context. The author suggests that the Israelite court scribes saw this word as particularly designated for requests made by a king from his counterpart, because they knew this word — which disappeared from Hebrew — only through their education in schools for scribes, where they were trained in the international diplomatic style. In both cases, then, the use of this word was a result of a conscious intention to imitate diplomatic style while referring to relations between the king and God, an intention motivated by rhetorical needs. This attempt exposes for us some of the authors' theological conceptions. While proving these conclusions the author reexamines the debated question of Psalm 61's classification, and shows that there are decisive arguments for deciding (versus the dominant opinion) that this is indeed a royal psalm.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.