Psalm 51:20-21 and the Story Behind Psalm 51

Psalm Overview

Exegetical Issues for Psalm 51:

The Verbal Semantics of Ps 51:8b

The Meaning of טֻּחוֹת and סָתֻם in Ps 51:8

Psalm 51:20-21 and the Story Behind Psalm 51

Introduction

The most significant exegetical issue regarding Ps 51 is the Story Behind the psalm--namely the background circumstances in which it was composed and performed--and how this relates to elements in the psalm.

The superscription in Ps 51:1-2 reads:

לַמְנַצֵּ֗חַ מִזְמ֥וֹר לְדָוִֽד׃ בְּֽבוֹא־אֵ֭לָיו נָתָ֣ן הַנָּבִ֑יא כַּֽאֲשֶׁר־בָּ֝֗א אֶל־בַּת־שָֽׁבַע׃

"For the director of music. A psalm of David. When the prophet Nathan came to him after David had committed adultery with Bathsheba (NIV)."

לְדָוִד is often understood as an attribution of Davidic composition/authorship. In the case of Ps 51, this interpretation may be supported by the historical note associating the psalm with David's confession of sin in 2 Sam 12:13. This combination of factors has given rise to the traditional reading of Ps 51 as having been composed by David on or with respect to this historical incident and interpreting the psalm in light of the personal circumstances of David's life.

A major challenge to this interpretation arises when one encounters Ps 51:20-21 [Eng 51:18-19]:

הֵיטִ֣יבָה בִ֭רְצוֹנְךָ אֶת־צִיּ֑וֹן תִּ֝בְנֶ֗ה חוֹמ֥וֹת יְרוּשָׁלִָֽם׃ אָ֤ז תַּחְפֹּ֣ץ זִבְחֵי־צֶ֭דֶק עוֹלָ֣ה וְכָלִ֑יל אָ֤ז יַעֲל֖וּ עַל־מִזְבַּחֲךָ֣ פָרִֽים׃

"Do good to Zion in your good pleasure; rebuild the walls of Jerusalem, then you will delight in right sacrifices, in burnt offerings and whole burnt offerings; then bulls will be offered on your altar (NRSV)."

According to most modern interpreters, the Story Behind the psalm implied by these verses seems rather to be a (post-)exilic context where Jerusalem is in ruins, its walls have been torn down, the temple has been destroyed, and the sacrificial cult has ceased operation.

Scholars have proposed three major options for reconciling these apparent differences:`

• Option 1: Ps 51 is a unified pre-exilic (Davidic) composition, with Ps 51:20-21 explained in a pre-exilic context.
• Option 2: Ps 51:20-21 are a (post-)exilic addition to an earlier Ps 51:3-19.
• Option 3: Ps 51 is a unified (post-)exilic (non-Davidic) composition.

The following argument maps lay out the arguments for and against these three main positions.

Argument Maps

Psalm 51 is a unified pre-exilic (Davidic) composition (preferred)

The traditional Jewish and Christian reading of Ps 51 has supposed that the psalm was composed by David himself with regard to the circumstances specified in the historical superscription. This reading finds support in details of the psalm that correspond nicely with David's life circumstances, but entails difficulties interpreting vv. 20-21. Few modern interpreters hold to Davidic authorship of a unified Ps 51.

===
model:
    removeTagsFromText: true
    shortcodes:
      ":C:": {unicode: "🄲"}
      ":G:": {unicode: "🄶"}
      ":A:": {unicode: "🄰"}
      ":I:": {unicode: "🄸"}    
      ":L:": {unicode: "🄻"}
      ":D:": {unicode: "🄳"}    
      ":M:": {unicode: "🄼"}   
selection:
    excludeDisconnected: false
dot:
    graphVizSettings:
        rankdir: LR
        concentrate: true
        ranksep: 0.2
        nodesep: 0.2
=== 
[Unified pre-exilic composition]: Ps 51 is a unified, pre-exilic composition (plausibly composed by David) (Delitzsch 1871 :C:; Eaton 1976, 70-71 :M:).
 + <Superscription>: The traditional superscription to Ps 51 attributes the psalm to David.
  + <לְדָוִד>: This superscription asserts Davidic composition of the psalm; see GKC §129c; Jenni 2000, 71 (rubric 2169).
   - <Original meaning of לְדָוִד>: The original meaning of לְדָוִד was not a claim of authorship/composition, but of association or dedication. 'We believe that it is likely that the superscription leḏāwiḏ did not originally indicate authorship--particularly, it did not originally indicate authorship by King David. There are several reasons for this conclusion. The primary reason is the many anachronisms in the psalms that preclude the idea of Davidic authorship. The most obvious of these anachronisms are the frequent references to the temple (Pss. 23:6; 27:4; 36:8), which was built after David’s time. In addition, there are many other theological, historical, and cultic anachronisms. At the most basic linguistic level, the superscription leḏāwiḏ need not imply Davidic authorship' (DeClaissé-Walford et al. 2014, 10 :C:). #dispreferred
  + <Historical superscription>: The historical superscription associates Ps 51 with David's confession in 2 Sam 12:13.
   + [Ps 51:2]: בְּֽבוֹא־אֵ֭לָיו נָתָ֣ן הַנָּבִ֑יא כַּֽאֲשֶׁר־בָּ֝֗א אֶל־בַּת־שָֽׁבַע׃ 
   + [2 Sam 12:13a]: וַיֹּ֤אמֶר דָּוִד֙ אֶל־נָתָ֔ן חָטָ֖אתִי לַֽיהוָ֑ה
   <_ <Original significance of historical superscription>: The superscription may originally have been intended to create an exegetical association linking Ps 51 and 2 Sam 12:13, rather than making a strict historical claim of authorship. In other words, the superscription says only that the psalm is profitably read as David's words, not that he personally composed the psalm historically speaking (Tate 1998, 9, 12-13 :C:). #dispreferred
   - <Pattern of attribution to ancient authors>: Biblical authors often attribute to biblical characters spoken words that were first written down long after these characters' lifetimes (e.g., dialogues in narratives, poems like Gen 49). The degree to which these are inherited from oral traditions, reformulated, or newly created when first written is debated. #dispreferred
 + <Exegetical tradition>: Traditional Jewish and Christian exegesis has generally supposed Davidic authorship.
 + <Internal indications of Davidic authorship>: There are many similarities between David's life situation in 2 Sam 11-12 and Ps 51 that suggest he composed Ps 51 in these circumstances.
  + [Sin against YHWH]: Ps 51:6  לְךָ֤ לְבַדְּךָ֨ ׀ חָטָאתִי֮; cf. 2 Sam 12:13 חָטָ֖אתִי לַֽיהוָ֑ה.
  + [Doing evil]: Ps 51:6 הָרַ֥ע בְּעֵינֶ֗יךָ עָ֫שִׂ֥יתִי; cf. 2 Sam 12:9 לַעֲשׂ֣וֹת הָרַע֮ בעינו.
  + [Secrecy]: Ps 51:8 הֵן־אֱ֭מֶת חָפַ֣צְתָּ בַטֻּח֑וֹת וּ֝בְסָתֻ֗ם חָכְמָ֥ה תוֹדִיעֵֽנִי׃; cf. 2 Sam 12:12 כִּ֥י אַתָּ֖ה עָשִׂ֣יתָ בַסָּ֑תֶר.
  + [Bloodshed]: Ps 51:16 הַצִּ֘ילֵ֤נִי מִדָּמִ֨ים ׀ אֱֽלֹהִ֗ים; cf. 2 Sam 12:9 אֵ֣ת אוּרִיָּ֤ה הַֽחִתִּי֙ הִכִּ֣יתָ בַחֶ֔רֶב ... וְאֹת֣וֹ הָרַ֔גְתָּ בְּחֶ֖רֶב בְּנֵ֥י עַמּֽוֹן׃. 
  <_ <Insufficient evidence>: These parallels are not distinctive and specific enough to demonstrate Davidic composition (Tate 1998, 13 :C:). Many biblical characters confess sin against YHWH (e.g., Exod 9:27; 10:16; Num 22:34; Josh 7:20; 1 Sam 15:24, 30; Mic 7:9; Job 33:27). The only distinctive/specific element is the bloodshed, but this may more plausibly refer to the danger from which the psalmist wants to be delivered than to forgiveness of his own personal bloodguilt. #dispreferred
  <_ <Familiarity with David narratives>: A later author familiar with the narratives of David's life could have composed Ps 51 with a view to David's situation. #dispreferred
 - <Ps 51:20-21 are (post-)exilic>: Ps 51:20-21 reflect a (post-)exilic situation and therefore cannot have been written by David (Dalglish 1962, 202 :M:). #dispreferred
  + <Jerusalem is destroyed>: Ps 51:20 presupposes that Jerusalem is in ruins and its walls need to be rebuilt. #dispreferred
   + [Historical circumstances of the city]: During David's lifetime (and particularly at the time of the Bathsheba affair), Jerusalem was thriving, and its walls were intact and strong. David had captured the strong walled Jebusite city of Jerusalem without destruction of the walls, resided within the fortress, and built up the city and a palace within the walls (2 Sam 5:6-12; 1 Chr 11:4-9). In 587 or 586 BCE, the Babylonians destroyed the city of Jerusalem including its temple and the surrounding city walls (2 Kgs 25:1-21; 2 Chr 36:15-19). The walls in particular are noted as destroyed in 2 Chr 36:19. In Nehemiah's time (5th century BCE), the walls of Jerusalem were still in ruins and needed to be rebuilt. #dispreferred
   + [Ps 51:20]: הֵיטִיבָה בִרְצוֹנְךָ אֶת צִיּוֹן תִּבְנֶה חוֹמוֹת יְרוּשָׁלִָם #dispreferred
   - <Ps 51:20 not anachronistic>: בנה can mean to" 'finish building what is in the act of being built" (cf. Ps 89:3), and Solomon continued to build and develop the city of Jerusalem, including its walls (1 Kgs 3:1; 9:15) (Delitzsch 1871, 142 :C:). This could have been anticipated already by David, in which case Ps 51:20 would have been a suitable expectation from David's perspective. Thus, Ps 51:20 need not imply the prior destruction of Jerusalem.
   <_ <Prophecy>: David may be speaking prophetically to the exiles in Babylon (Theodoret, 'Commentary on Psalm 51' §§1, 13 :C:).
  + <Cessation of sacrifices>: Ps 51:21 presupposes that the Jerusalem temple has been destroyed and acceptable sacrifice has ceased. #dispreferred
   + [Historical circumstances of the sacrificial cult]: During David's lifetime, there were no necessary physical impediments to offering right sacrifices on YHWH's altar. David had moved the ark of the covenant to Jerusalem, set it inside a tent he had constructed for the purpose, and offered burnt offerings to YHWH in Jerusalem (2 Sam 6; 1 Chr 13:1-14; 15:25-16:3). Meanwhile, Moses's tabernacle and bronze altar were located at the high place in Gibeon (1 Chr 16:39-42; 21:29; 2 Chr 1:1-6, 13), which was the primary worship site for Israel and the king (1 Kgs 3:1-4; cf. 2 Sam 21:6 (LXX), 9) until the completion of Solomon's temple. David was not allowed to build a temple for YHWH (2 Sam 7), but was instrumental in planning its construction and operation (2 Sam 7:1-3; 1 Chr 17:1-6; 22:1-29:9). Late in his life, David did build an altar on Mt. Moriah where Solomon's temple would be built (2 Sam 24:1-25; 1 Chr 21:1-22:1; 2 Chr 3:1). Solomon's temple for YHWH in Jerusalem and its implements were destroyed by the Babylonians in 587 or 586 BCE (2 Kgs 25:1-21; 2 Chr 36:15-19). #dispreferred
   + [Ps 51:21]:  אָ֤ז תַּחְפֹּ֣ץ זִבְחֵי־צֶ֭דֶק עוֹלָ֣ה וְכָלִ֑יל אָ֤ז יַעֲל֖וּ עַל־מִזְבַּחֲךָ֣ פָרִֽים׃ #dispreferred
   - <Ps 51:21 not anachronistic>: David may have anticipated the establishment and/or centralization of right worship in the Jerusalem temple (as opposed to Gibeon and other high places), so Ps 51:21 need not imply the prior destruction of the Jerusalem temple or the cessation of sacrifices.
   - <Ps 51:21 focuses on right sacrifices>: Ps 51:21 emphasizes that God will delight in sacrifices offered with a contrite spirit (cf. Ps 51:19) as a result of personal and national restoration, rather than presupposing a total contemporary absence of the sacrificial cult.
  - <Metonymy>: David is referred to metonymically as Zion/Jerusalem, in which case vv. 20-21 should be understood to refer metaphorically to David's restoration (Ross 2019 :A:).
 - <Late themes>: Many themes and expressions in Ps 51 are rare (if attested at all) in early Israelite/Judahite literature, but common and prominent in later literature. #dispreferred
  + <Zion theology>: Emphasis on Zion (metonymy for Jerusalem) as God's chosen city and only legitimate location for sacrifice is a later development in Israelite literature (cf. Gillingham 2007 :A:). #dispreferred
   <_ <Early Zion psalms>: Some Zion psalms reflect early Canaanite themes and may have been written relatively early (Miller 2010 :A:).
   <_ <Emphasis on quality, not location>: זִבְחֵי־צֶ֭דֶק in Ps 51:21 focuses on the desirable quality of sacrifices rightly offered with contrite hearts (cf. Ps 51:19), rather than sacrifices offered in the right location.
  + <Literary context>: Ps 51:3-19 has many close lexical and thematic parallels with (pre-)exilic prophetic literature and thus reflects either this same time period (Dalglish 1962, 223-225 :M:) or direct dependence upon the prophetic literature (Briggs and Briggs 1907, 4 :C:; Hossfeld and Zenger 2005, 18 :C:). #dispreferred
   - <Prophetic dependence on Ps 51>: Isaiah and other prophets may have been familiar with Ps 51 (Delitzsch 1871, 134, 142-143 :C:).

Psalm 51:20-21 are a (post-)exilic addition to an earlier psalm

In large part because Ps 51:20-21 seem to presuppose a (post-)exilic context, most scholars consider these verses to be a late editorial addition secondary to the main part of the psalm (Ps 51:3-19). This may allow for pre-exilic (potentially) Davidic authorship of Psalm 51:3-19, but does not require it. For example, Hossfeld and Zenger conclude that 51:20-21 are secondary, but that Ps 51:3-19 are also post-exilic. Most scholars who take 51:20-21 as secondary date the primary Ps 51:3-19 to late in the period of the Judahite monarchy.

===
model:
    removeTagsFromText: true
    shortcodes:
      ":C:": {unicode: "🄲"}
      ":G:": {unicode: "🄶"}
      ":A:": {unicode: "🄰"}
      ":I:": {unicode: "🄸"}    
      ":L:": {unicode: "🄻"}
      ":D:": {unicode: "🄳"}    
      ":M:": {unicode: "🄼"}   
selection:
    excludeDisconnected: false
dot:
    graphVizSettings:
        rankdir: LR
        concentrate: true
        ranksep: 0.2
        nodesep: 0.2
=== 
[Secondary addition]: Psalm 51:20-21 are a (post-)exilic addition to an earlier psalm (Dalglish 1962 :M:; Kraus 1993 :C:; Weiser 1998 :C:; Tate 1998 :C:; Day 2004 :A:; Hossfeld and Zenger 2005 :C:). #dispreferred
 + <Zion-oriented redaction>: Many psalms reflect the Zion theology of the compilers of the Psalter and its sub-collections, who also edited existing psalms to reflect this emphasis (Gillingham 2007 :A:). This includes several additions to individual penitential psalms to make them appropriate for communal use, such as Ps 25:22 (outside the acrostic structure); 130:7-8 (Dalglish 1962, 205 :M:). #dispreferred
 + <Poetic incoherence>: The poetic characteristics of Ps 51:20-21 differ considerably from vv. 3-19. #dispreferred
  + <Strophic structure>: Ps 51:20-21 are not integrated into the main strophic structure of the primary Ps 51:3-19 (Auffret 1976 :A:). #dispreferred
   - <Poetic integration>: Ps 51:20-21 are integrated into the main strophic structure of Ps 51 (van der Lugt 2010, 100-102 :M:).
  + <Artistic differences>: "In vv. 3-19 there is a superb creativity and metrical regularity; in vv. 20, 21 one notices that three words of v. 18 are repeated in v. 21, a verse that almost defies scansion, and that the lyric elevation is gone" (Dalglish 1962, 205 :M:). #dispreferred
   <_ <Cascading pattern of repeated roots>: Ps 51 exhibits a cascading pattern where roots from earlier in the psalm are repeated later in the psalm, and vv. 20-21 may simply continue this pattern.
  + <Participant differences>: While Ps 51:3-19 are dominated by the interaction between the 'I' and 'you,' v. 20-21 are focused on others (Dalglish 1962, 204). #dispreferred
   <_ <Anticipation in Ps 51:15>: The switch to focus on restored others is anticipated by Ps 51:15.
   <_ <Shifts in participant reference>: Shifts in participant reference are common in the psalms and do not necessarily imply different composers.
 + <Thematic incoherence>: Ps 51:20-21 reflect different and at times conflicting themes than 51:3-19. Vv. 20–21 are "an eschatologizing and collectivizing continuation of the originally individual prayer of petition in vv. 3–19... vv. 3–19 are not constituted either semantically or structurally with a view to vv. 20–21 as their climax. On the contrary, Jerusalem (and Zion) were nowhere in the picture before this, and the statements in vv. 18–19, critical as they are of sacrifices, are rather in tension with the sacrificial theology in v. 21" (Hossfeld and Zenger 2005, 16 :C:). #dispreferred
  + <Sacrifices>: Ps 51:3-19 (esp. vv. 9, 18-19) presuppose and prophetically critique the contemporary practice of cult sacrifices, while 51:20-21 presuppose the contemporary cessation of sacrifices and look forward to its restoration (Dalglish 1962, 205 :M:). The addition of 51:20-21 could have been added in part to prevent reading vv. 18-19 as a complete rejection of the sacrificial system. #dispreferred
   <_ <Hyperbole in 51:18-19>: The prophetic critique of sacrifices in Ps 51:18-19 should be understood as hyperbolic critique of sacrifices wrongly practiced, rather than an outright rejection of the temple cult.
  + <Individual vs. corporate piety>: Ps 51:3-19 reflects a highly individualised spirituality, whereas 51:20-21 is concerned with national restoration and corporate piety (Dalglish 1962, 204-205). #dispreferred
   - <Corporate concerns in Ps 51:15-17>: Ps 51:15-17 reflect the outward working of personal piety with a view to corporate repentance, restoration, and worship. These verses thus anticipate well the developments in vv. 20-21, especially if the psalmist is the king representing the nation.
   <_ <Collective interpretation of 51:3-19>: The 'I' of Ps 51:3-19 may have been interpreted as representative of the nation, either collectively or through the person of the king (Dalglish 1962, 207 :M:).
  + <Jerusalem>: Jerusalem is nowhere in view in Ps 51:3-19, but dominates vv. 20-21 (Hossfeld and Zenger 2005, 16 :C:). #dispreferred
   <_ <Importance of Jerusalem>: Jerusalem was important as the cultic centre of ancient Israel, so the wellbeing of David and Jerusalem were inextricably linked (DeClaissé-Walford et al. 2014, 457 :C:).
  + <Temporal settings>: Ps 51:3-19 speak of the present experience of the psalmist, whereas vv. 20-21 speak of a future "then" (Dalglish 1962, 205 :M:). #dispreferred
   <_ <Anticipation or restoration>: Ps 51:20 contains two directive verbs (imperative and yiqtol), which closely parallels the similar usage in the individual pleas in vv. 3-19. The anticipated personal restoration is every bit as future as the national restoration.
  - <Ps 51:20-21 integral to the psalm>: Ps 51:20-21 continue themes from earlier in the psalm and are "essential to the completeness" of the psalm (Briggs and Briggs 1907, 10 :C:; so also DeClaissé-Walford et al. 2014, 457 :C:).
  - <Metonymy>: David is referred to metonymically as Zion/Jerusalem, in which case vv. 20-21 should be understood to refer metaphorically to David's restoration (Ross 2019 :A:).

Psalm 51 is a unified (post-)exilic composition

Some scholars reject the identification of Ps 51:20-21 as a secondary addition and yet still conclude that Ps 51 in its entirety is a unified (post-)exilic composition. This stems from the conviction that many of the themes and forms of the psalm are late and dependent upon (post-)exilic prophets.

===
model:
    removeTagsFromText: true
    shortcodes:
      ":C:": {unicode: "🄲"}
      ":G:": {unicode: "🄶"}
      ":A:": {unicode: "🄰"}
      ":I:": {unicode: "🄸"}    
      ":L:": {unicode: "🄻"}
      ":D:": {unicode: "🄳"}    
      ":M:": {unicode: "🄼"}   
selection:
    excludeDisconnected: false
dot:
    graphVizSettings:
        rankdir: LR
        concentrate: true
        ranksep: 0.2
        nodesep: 0.2
=== 
[Unified (post-)exilic composition]: Ps 51:3-21 are a unified composition written after the exile (Briggs and Briggs 1907 :C:; Dahood 1968 :C:). #dispreferred
 + <Ps 51:20-21 are (post-)exilic>: Ps 51:20-21 reflect a (post-)exilic situation (Dalglish 1962, 202 :M:). #dispreferred
  <_ <Ps 51:20-21 are secondary>: Ps 51:20-21 'may be a later addition and no reliable evidence of the date for the primary psalm' (Tate 1998, 9 :C:).
   - <Ps 51:20-21 integral to the psalm>: Ps 51:20-21 continue themes from earlier in the psalm and are 'essential to the completeness' of the psalm (Briggs and Briggs 1907, 10 :C:; so also DeClaissé-Walford et al. 2014, 457 :C:). #dispreferred
  + <Jerusalem is destroyed>: Ps 51:20 presupposes that Jerusalem is in ruins and its walls need to be rebuilt. #dispreferred
   + [Historical circumstances of the city]: During David's lifetime (and particularly at the time of the Bathsheba affair), Jerusalem was thriving, and its walls were intact and strong. David had captured the strong walled Jebusite city of Jerusalem without destruction of the walls, resided within the fortress, and built up the city and a palace within the walls (2 Sam 5:6-12; 1 Chr 11:4-9). In 587 or 586 BCE, the Babylonians destroyed the city of Jerusalem including its temple and the surrounding city walls (2 Kgs 25:1-21; 2 Chr 36:15-19). The walls in particular are noted as destroyed in 2 Chr 36:19. In Nehemiah's time (5th century BCE), the walls of Jerusalem were still in ruins and needed to be rebuilt. #dispreferred
   + [Ps 51:20]: הֵיטִ֣יבָה בִ֭רְצוֹנְךָ אֶת־צִיּ֑וֹן תִּ֝בְנֶ֗ה חוֹמ֥וֹת יְרוּשָׁלִָֽם׃ #dispreferred
   - <Ps 51:20 not anachronistic>: בנה can mean to 'finish building what is in the act of being built' (cf. Ps 89:3), and Solomon continued to build and develop the city of Jerusalem, including its walls (1 Kgs 3:1; 9:15) (Delitzsch 1871, 142 :C:). The Psalms Targum supports this particular reading: תשכלל שורי ירושלם׃ 'you will complete the walls of Jerusalem' (trans. Cook). This could have been anticipated already by David, in which case Ps 51:20 would have been a suitable expectation from David's perspective. Thus, Ps 51:20 need not imply the prior destruction of Jerusalem.
   <_ <Prophecy>: David may be speaking prophetically to the exiles in Babylon (Theodoret, 'Commentary on Psalm 51' §§1, 13).
  + <Cessation of sacrifices>: Ps 51:21 presupposes that the Jerusalem temple has been destroyed and acceptable sacrifice has ceased. #dispreferred
   + [Historical circumstances of the sacrificial cult]: During David's lifetime, there were no necessary physical impediments to offering right sacrifices on YHWH's altar. David had moved the ark of the covenant to Jerusalem, set it inside a tent he had constructed for the purpose, and offered burnt offerings to YHWH in Jerusalem (2 Sam 6; 1 Chr 13:1-14; 15:25-16:3). Meanwhile, Moses's tabernacle and bronze altar were located at the high place in Gibeon (1 Chr 16:39-42; 21:29; 2 Chr 1:1-6, 13), which was the primary worship site for Israel and the king (1 Kgs 3:1-4; cf. 2 Sam 21:6 (LXX), 9) until the completion of Solomon's temple. David was not allowed to build a temple for YHWH (2 Sam 7), but was instrumental in planning its construction and operation (2 Sam 7:1-3; 1 Chr 17:1-6; 22:1-29:9). Late in his life, David did build an altar on Mt. Moriah where Solomon's temple would be built (2 Sam 24:1-25; 1 Chr 21:1-22:1; 2 Chr 3:1). Solomon's temple for YHWH in Jerusalem and its implements were destroyed by the Babylonians in 587 or 586 BCE (2 Kgs 25:1-21; 2 Chr 36:15-19). #dispreferred
   + [Ps 51:21]: אָ֤ז תַּחְפֹּ֣ץ זִבְחֵי־צֶ֭דֶק עוֹלָ֣ה וְכָלִ֑יל אָ֤ז יַעֲל֖וּ עַל־מִזְבַּחֲךָ֣ פָרִֽים׃ #dispreferred
   - <Ps 51:21 not anachronistic>: David may have anticipated the establishment and/or centralization of right worship in the Jerusalem temple (as opposed to Gibeon and other high places), so Ps 51:21 need not imply the prior destruction of the Jerusalem temple or the cessation of sacrifices.
   - <Ps 51:21 focuses on right sacrifices>: Ps 51:21 emphasizes that God will delight in sacrifices offered with a contrite spirit (cf. Ps 51:19) as a result of personal and national restoration, rather than presupposing a total contemporary absence of the sacrificial cult.
 + <Late themes>: Many themes and expressions in Ps 51 are rare (if attested at all) in early Israelite/Judahite literature, but common and prominent in later literature. #dispreferred
  + <Dependence upon exilic prophets>: Ps 51:3-19 show heavy dependence upon exilic prophetic literature (Briggs and Briggs 1907, 4 :C:; Hossfeld and Zenger 2005, 18 :C:). #dispreferred
   <_ <Independence of prophetic literature>: The close lexical and thematic parallels with (pre-)exilic prophetic literature may independently reflect the same milieu (Dalglish 1962, 223-225 :M:), or else Isaiah and other prophets may have been familiar with Ps 51 (Delitzsch 1871, 134, 142-143 :C:).
  + <Zion theology>: Emphasis on Zion (metonymy for Jerusalem) as God's chosen city and only legitimate location for sacrifice is a later development in Israelite literature (cf. Gillingham 2007 :A:). #dispreferred
   <_ <Early Zion psalms>: Some Zion psalms reflect early Canaanite themes and may have been written relatively early (Miller 2010 :A:).
   <_ <Emphasis on quality, not location>: זִבְחֵי־צֶ֭דֶק in Ps 51:21 focuses on the desirable quality of sacrifices rightly offered with contrite hearts (cf. Ps 51:19), rather than sacrifices offered in the right location.
 - <Pre-exilic context>: Ps 51:3-19 reflect a pre-exilic context.
  + <Cultic context>: Ps 51:3-19 presuppose a functioning contemporary cult sacrificial system and so is pre-exilic (e.g., cleansing with hyssop in v. 9 and the possibility of animal sacrifices in v. 18; Day 2004, 239-240 :A:).
  + <Literary context>: Ps 51:3-19 has many close lexical and thematic parallels with pre-exilic prophetic literature and thus probably reflects this same time period (Dalglish 1962, 223-225 :M:).
 - <Davidic authorship>: Ps 51 is traditionally attributed to David, who lived centuries before the exile.
  + <לְדָוִד>: This superscription asserts Davidic composition of the psalm; GKC §129c; Jenni 2000, 71 (rubric 2169).
   - <Original meaning of לְדָוִד>:The original meaning of לְדָוִד was not a claim of authorship, but of association or dedication. 'We believe that it is likely that the superscription leḏāwiḏ did not originally indicate authorship—particularly, it did not originally indicate authorship by King David. There are several reasons for this conclusion. The primary reason is the many anachronisms in the psalms that preclude the idea of Davidic authorship. The most obvious of these anachronisms are the frequent references to the temple (Pss. 23:6; 27:4; 36:8), which was built after David’s time. In addition, there are many other theological, historical, and cultic anachronisms. At the most basic linguistic level, the superscription leḏāwiḏ need not imply Davidic authorship' (DeClaissé-Walford et al. 2014, 10 :C:). #dispreferred
  + <Historical superscription>: The historical superscription associates Ps 51 with David's confession in 2 Sam 12:13.
   + [Ps 51:2]: בְּֽבוֹא־אֵ֭לָיו נָתָ֣ן הַנָּבִ֑יא כַּֽאֲשֶׁר־בָּ֝֗א אֶל־בַּת־שָֽׁבַע׃ 
   + [2 Sam 12:13a]: וַיֹּאמֶר דָּוִד אֶל נָתָן חָטָאתִי לַיהוָה
   <_ <Original significance of historical superscription>: The superscription may originally have been intended to create an exegetical association linking Ps 51 and 2 Sam 12:13, rather than making a strict historical claim of authorship. In other words, the superscription says only that the psalm is profitably read as David's words, not that he personally composed the psalm historically speaking (Tate 1998:9, 12-13 :C:). #dispreferred
   - <Pattern of attribution to ancient authors>: Biblical authors often attribute to biblical characters words that were first written down long after these characters' lifetimes (e.g., dialogues in narratives, poems like Gen 49). #dispreferred
  + <Exegetical tradition>: Traditional Jewish and Christian exegesis has generally supposed Davidic authorship.
 - <Internal indications of Davidic authorship>: There are many similarities between David's life situation in 2 Sam 11-12 and Ps 51 that suggest he composed Ps 51 in these circumstances.
  + [Sin against YHWH]: Ps 51:6 לְךָ֤ לְבַדְּךָ֨ ׀ חָטָאתִי֮; cf. 2 Sam 12:13 חָטָ֖אתִי לַֽיהוָ֑ה.
  + [Doing evil]: Ps 51:6 הָרַ֥ע בְּעֵינֶ֗יךָ עָ֫שִׂ֥יתִי; cf. 2 Sam 12:9 לַעֲשׂ֣וֹת הָרַע֮ בעינו.
  + [Secrecy]: Ps 51:8 הֵן־אֱ֭מֶת חָפַ֣צְתָּ בַטֻּח֑וֹת וּ֝בְסָתֻ֗ם חָכְמָ֥ה תוֹדִיעֵֽנִי׃; cf. 2 Sam 12:12 כִּ֥י אַתָּ֖ה עָשִׂ֣יתָ בַסָּ֑תֶר.
  + [Bloodshed]: Ps 51:16 הַצִּ֘ילֵ֤נִי מִדָּמִ֨ים ׀ אֱֽלֹהִ֗ים; cf. 2 Sam 12:9 אֵ֣ת אוּרִיָּ֤ה הַֽחִתִּי֙ הִכִּ֣יתָ בַחֶ֔רֶב ... וְאֹת֣וֹ הָרַ֔גְתָּ בְּחֶ֖רֶב בְּנֵ֥י עַמּֽוֹן׃.
  <_ <Insufficient evidence>: These parallels are not distinctive and specific enough to demonstrate Davidic composition (Tate 1998, 13 :C:). Many biblical characters confess sin against YHWH (e.g., Exod 9:27; 10:16; Num 22:34; Josh 7:20; 1 Sam 15:24, 30; Mic 7:9; Job 33:27). The only distinctive/specific element is the bloodshed, but this may more plausibly refer to the danger from which the psalmist wants to be delivered than to forgiveness of his own personal bloodguilt. #dispreferred
  <_ <Familiarity with David narratives>: A later author familiar with the narratives of David's life could have composed Ps 51 with a view to David's situation. #dispreferred

Conclusion (B)

While reasonable arguments can be made for all three of the positions discussed above, we here prefer to read Ps 51:3-21 as a unified composition whose interpretation is framed by its superscription (vv. 1-2). The collective restoration envisioned in vv. 20-21 is a natural outgrowth of the personal restoration requested in vv. 3-19, especially if the psalmist is the king representing the nation that has suffered the consequences of his sins. At first glance, vv. 20-21 may be naturally read as presupposing the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 or 586 BCE. But this is never explicitly stated, and, on closer inspection, there is nothing in vv. 20-21 that David could not (or, indeed--according to the historical books--did not) have anticipated. The psalmist's desire for personal restoration, national prosperity, and a thriving sacrificial cult with contrite worshippers is just as appropriate in the mouth of David as that of any other Judahite king or psalmist.

It is understandable why the majority of scholars treat vv. 20-21 as a secondary addition, given the surface-level tensions in form, theme, and supposed context between vv. 3-19 and 20-21. But this hypothesis is highly speculative and not necessary to explain the final form of the psalm. There is similarly no conclusive evidence requiring a post-exilic composition of the unified poem, since the potential anachronisms in vv. 20-21 can all be meaningfully and compellingly read in a pre-exilic context.

The lack of conclusive evidence against the literary context suggested by the superscription and the viability and productiveness of a Davidic reading, lead us to read Ps 51 first and foremost as a unified psalm of David that has been composed with a view to a liturgical setting (cf. v. 1, לַמְנַצֵּ֗חַ "for the music director"). Regardless of whether David himself composed these words or a later poet associated the poem with him and/or added vv. 20-21, Ps 51 certainly sounds appropriate and meaningful in the mouth of David. Nevertheless, the liturgical setting likely suggests that, even if this psalm derives from a specific historical incident, it is not restricted to commemorating that incident; it is considered equally appropriate for other worshipers. Thus, it has rightly served as a treasured individual penitential psalm--indeed, perhaps the pinnacle of the genre--throughout the ages. The exquisite words of Ps 51 continue to speak to our modern situations every bit as much as they do to David's.

Research

Secondary Literature

Auffret, Pierre. 1976. "Note sur la structure littéraire de Ps LI 1-19." VT 26, no. 2: 142-147.

Briggs, Charles Augustus, and Emilie Grace Briggs. 1907. The Book of Psalms, Vol. 2. ICC. New York: Scribner.

Dahood, Mitchell. 1968. Psalms II: 51-100. Anchor Yale Bible 17. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Dalglish, Edward R. 1962. Psalm Fifty-One in the Light of Ancient Near Eastern Patternism. Leiden: Brill.

Day, John. 2004. "How Many Pre-Exilic Psalms are There?" Pages 225-250 in In Search of Pre-Exilic Israel: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar. Edited by John Day. JSOTSup 406. London: T&T Clark.

DeClaissé-Walford, Nancy L., Rolf A. Jacobson, and Beth Laneel Tanner. 2014. The Book of Psalms. NICOT. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Delitzsch, Franz. 1871. Biblical Commentary on the Psalms, Vol. 2. Translated by Francis Bolton. Edinburgh: T&T Clark.

Eaton, John. 1976. Kingship and the Psalms. SBT 2.32. London: SCM.

Gillingham, Susan E. 2007. "The Zion Tradition and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter." Pages 308-341 in Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel. Edited by John Day. London: T&T Clark.

Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar and Erich Zenger. 2005. Psalms 2: A Commentary on Psalms 51-100. Edited by Klaus Baltzer. Translated by Linda M. Maloney. Hermeneia. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress.

Jenni, Ernst. 2000. Die hebräischen Präpositionen, Band 3: Die Präposition Lamed. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.

Kraus, Hans-Joachim. 1993. Psalms 1-59. Translated by Hilton C. Oswald. Continental Commentary. Minneapolis: Fortress.

Leene, Henk. 1996. "Personal Penitence and the Rebuilding of Zion: The Unity of Psalm 51." Pages 61-77 in Give Ear to My Words: Psalms and Other Poetry in and around the Hebrew Bible. Edited by Janet Dyk. Amsterdam: Societas Hebraica Amstelodamensis.

van der Lugt, Pieter. 2010. Cantos and Strophes in Biblical Hebrew Poetry II: Psalms 42-89. OtSt 57. Leiden: Brill.

Miller, Robert D. 2010. "The Origin of the Zion Hymns." Pages 667-675 in The Composition of the Book of Psalms. Edited by Erich Zenger. BETL 238. Leuven: Peeters.

Ross, William A. 2019. "David's Spiritual Walls and Conceptual Blending in Psalm 51." JSOT 43, no. 4: 607-626.

Tate, Marvin E. 1998. Psalms 51–100. Word Biblical Commentary 20. Dallas: Word.

Weiser, Artur. 1998. The Psalms: A Commentary. Translated by Herbert Hartwell. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster.

References

51:20 51:21 Approved