Psalm 80 was written in response to a national crisis, a catastrophic event that forever altered Israel’s national identity. Gunkel defines the Psalm as a ‘Lament of the Nation’, a complaint on
121
behalf of the people confronting a time of great difficulty seeking God to take away their
plague.418 However, there is a question as to which catastrophe is being lamented. There are two general beliefs concerning the circumstances of this lament that will be briefly discussed for interpretative purposes. The two primary views are regionally associated to the period after the division of the monarchy in 922 BCE. The first theory is that an Israelite author hoping for Israel’s deliverance from Assyria wrote the Psalm in the decade between 732 BCE to 722 BCE. Second, a Judahite author is pleading for deliverance from Babylon that would commonly be dated to the late 6th century BCE.
Israel Theory
Several features of the psalm may indicate an Israelite origin amidst the disastrous conflict with Assyria. Goulder places the psalm in the historical period of the 720s BCE, ‘which we have found to be the probable background of the other Asaph psalms.’419 Psalm 80 contains the prescript notation רוֹמְז ִּמף ָס ָא ְלתוּדֵּעםי ִּנ ַשֹׁׁשׁ־ל ֶא ַח ֵּצַנ ְמַל, evidently a well—known tune known as ‘Lilies, a Covenant’.420 Psalm 79 LXX changes the notation of the lilies to ‘Εἰς τὸ τέλος, ὑπὲρ
τῶν ἀλλοιωθησομένων, μαρτύριον τῷ Ασαφ, ψαλμὸς ὑπὲρ τοῦ Ἀσσυρίου’.421 The theme of the
psalm is loss and the yearning for restoration, which by the time of the LXX had become associated with Israel’s destruction by Assyria. Judah now had an enemy province instead of a sister kingdom.422
418 H. Gunkel, Einleitung in die Psalmen,4th ed. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1985), 117. For an English
synopsis see H. Gunkel’s, The Psalms: A Form Critical Introduction, trans. T. Horner, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967).
419 M. Goulder, The Psalms of Asaph and the Pentateuch (England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 137. 420 W. L. Holladay, The Psalms Through Three Thousand Years (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 74. 421 F. Delitzsch, Biblischer Kommentar Uber die Psalmen (Leipzig: Dorffling und Franke, 1894), 534. 422 D. Kidner, Psalms 73—150, TOTC (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1975), 288.
122
Ephraim and Manasseh are northern territories that suggest a northern location for Psalm 80 as they are the two half—tribes of Joseph.423Specific references to Benjamin, who only partially remained with the house of David, along with Ephraim and Manasseh, form a Joseph triad that had strong northern kingdom affiliations.424 The plea for God’s might before Ephraim, Benjamin and Manasseh implies the situation of 732 BCE to 722 BCE as Gilead and Galilee have been annexed by Tiglath—Pileser, forming an Assyrian province.425 The psalmist may be envisioning Ephraim, Benjamin and Manasseh as the three sons of Rachel and the three tribes that immediately went behind the ark.426
The author could have been a Judaean familiar with the recent events of Israel’s
destruction, or an Israelite living in the decade of 732—722 BCE, prior to the conquest.427 The pleads for mercy on Israel’s behalf may indicate a rescue from Assyria before it is too late, while also praying the same fate will not come upon Judah.428 Israel exhausted its resources battling with Damascus Aram before submitting to Assyria in Hezekiah’s sixth year. Visitations by Assyrian kings such as Tiglath—pileser and Shalmaneser weighed heavily on Israel and created concern for Judah, should their northern barrier fall.429 It is possible the reference to being assaulted by the זיִּז in verse 14 was a symbol for Assyria, though such a proposal is
speculative.430 Ultimately the best evidence is found in the LXX with the inclusion of ψαλμὸς ὑπὲρ τοῦ Ἀσσυρίου and the Assyrian connotation with the loss of the ten tribes in the North.
423 W. L. Holladay, The Psalms, 27.
424 F. Delitzsch, Biblischer Kommentar, 534—535.
425 M. Goulder, The Psalms of Asaph and the Pentateuch, 137. 426 C. Spurgeon, The Treasury of David, 392—393.
427 W. VanGemeren, ‘Psalms’, Expositors’ Bible Commentary Vol. 5, Ed. Frank Gaebelein (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1991), 523—524.
428 W. VanGemeren, ‘Psalms’, 523—524. 429 F. Delitzsch, Biblischer Kommentar, 535. 430 F. Delitzsch, Biblischer Kommentar, 534.
123 Judah Theory
The reference to the vine being brought out of Egypt indicates both Israel and Judah to proponents of this view as the vine is the whole nation of Israel.431 The question which follows the third strophe about the vine’s fences being broken down, and the burning of the vine in verses 15—16, paint a portrait of the whole nation and the fears surrounding exile and the loss of everything achieved under David.432
The description in verse 2 of enthronement upon the cherubim may have originated as an Ephraimite tradition at Shiloh, but it later became associated with Jerusalem as the ark was located in the temple.433 Jeremiah’s use of ‘fed’ and ‘drink’ (Jeremiah 9:14 and 23:15) are
paralleled in the psalm, as is the dominant shepherd theme (Jeremiah 2:8; 3:15; 10:21; 12:10; 17:16; 22:22; 23:1—4; 25:34—36; 31:10; 33:12: 43:12; 49:19; 50:6; 51:23).434 An origin in the time of Josiah and Jeremiah is a possibility, though an Asaphite scribe may have reworked an older psalm to meet the needs of a post—exilic Israel.435 The psalmist’s use of the exodus may serve as a metaphor for the hope of deliverance from Babylon, yearning for a return from the exile and a restored Zion, as seen in Psalm 85 and Psalm 87.436
Pre—Divided Monarchy Theory
Heinemann has suggested a unique date for Psalm 80 to avoid any potential difficulties caused by what he believes to be incompatible and confusing information for regional
431 M. Buttenwieser, The Psalms (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1938), 234. Other scholars who
support the whole Israel view are: C. Briggs, The Book of Psalms, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1907); W. Scroggie,
The Psalms (Old Tappen: Fleming H. Revell, 1965); C. Briggs, Messianic Prophecy: The Prediction of the Fulfillment of Redemption through the Messiah (New York: Scribners, 1886).
432 M. Buttenwieser, The Psalms, 234.
433 M. Tate, Psalms 51—100, WBC (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2000),311. 434 M. Tate, Psalms 51—100, 311.
435 M. Tate, Psalms 51—100, 312—313.
124
affiliation.437 He rejects the Israel theory because he claims a northerner viewing Israel’s
destruction as the whole vine is implausible. Likewise, including Benjamin with the north is problematic as they stayed loyal to king Rehoboam in 1 Kings 12:21.438 Heinemann also dismisses the Judah theory as Jerusalem and Judah are not mentioned, prominence is given to tribes of Israel and all of Israel being called Joseph is inexplicable in a Babylonian exilic context.439
Heinemann argues for a composition during the time of Saul to avoid regional
difficulties. His basis for this opinion is that it explains why Benjamin is prominent in Psalm 80, and the phrase ךֶָני ִּמ ְי שׁי ִּא is used of Saul in 1 Samuel 9:1 and 21:7.440 Ravasi is right to say that this date would make Psalm 80 one of the most archaic psalms in the Hebrew Psalter.441 In addition to being archaic, this view faces several difficulties. Heinemann acknowledges that northern Israel tribes are featured in the psalm, but the inclusion of Benjamin does not require a Judahite reading when understanding those tribes are associated to Joseph. He further casts doubt on the Judah theory because Judah is not mentioned by name, though Saul’s tribe Benjamin is not singularly distinguished either. It is also unclear which supposed period of Saul’s reign is the subject of this dire lament.
Evaluation
The internal evidence of the psalm indicates a composition in Israel as a response to the Assyrian crisis. While Benjamin was associated with Judah, this does not require a Judahite
437 H. Heinemann, ‘The Date of Psalm 80’, JQR 40 (1949): 297. 438 H. Heinemann, ‘The Date of Psalm 80’, 298—299.
439 H. Heinemann, ‘The Date of Psalm 80’, 297—298. 440 H. Heinemann, ‘The Date of Psalm 80’, 299.
125
reading as the emphasis is on the Joseph triad, which is predominantly northern. The Saul theory attempts to by—pass any perceived regional difficulties with the images by suggesting a time period nowhere hinted at in the text or its later LXX version.
Objections to this regional composition on the grounds that the vine can only refer to the whole nation are wanting for several reasons. Following the 10th century BCE division of the monarchy, Israel established its own centres of worship and kingship, a divisive split that creates room for both kingdoms to view themselves as the true vine. Even if the Israelite psalmist viewed the divided kingdoms as one people, this still does not prevent him from reminding God that this vine, his people, are in danger. It is possible a Judahite author was beseeching the restoration of the sister kingdom in the wake of the Assyrian destruction, which still makes the fall of Israel the subject. Likewise, the psalm may have started as an Israel psalm that was later redacted by a Judahite author, but this cannot be ascertained with any certainty. The emphasis on predominately northern Joseph tribes, the Assyrian reference in the LXX version and the description of catastrophe befitting the destruction of 722 BCE indicate an Israel psalm of lament.