The ESV and NLT Study Bibles on Psalm 2: A Comparison (Part 1)

As I noted in my introduction to this review series, the ESV and NLT Study Bibles do not always do a credible job of distinguishing between historical exegesis and christological exegesis of the Old Testament. This is not a minor detail. In the case of Psalm 2, the distinction is maintained in NLT  (that is, a christological reading of the text does not make its appearance in translation), but not in the comment to it in NLTSB. For its part, ESV expresses a theological agenda foreign to the historical sense of Psalm 2 by capitalizing “Son” in 2:12, as Jim Getz and I have pointed out in the past. The comment in ESVSB continues on that trajectory, which would not be objectionable if the historical sense of the psalm were also explicated for its own sake.

In brief, the comment in both NLTSB and ESVSB mixes and matches the historical plain-sense and christological levels in a way I would have thought no longer acceptable in the wake of evangelical commentaries like that of Peter Craigie. I will exemplify in a future post. Below the fold, I discuss the situation in more general terms, and talk about excursuses in NLTSB and the lack thereof in ESVSB.

What Kind of Exegesis do NLTSB and ESVSB Give Us?

Generally speaking, exegetes fall into two categories: (1) those who seek to elucidate the historical sense of a text based on the text itself and what is known about the putative life and times in which the text was written; (2) those who seek to elucidate the sense a text has in light of a Jewish or Christian metanarrative which the text itself does not presuppose.

On the part of a single scholar, an unwavering commitment to both kinds of textual elucidation is rare. In the case of Psalm 2, C. John Collins (for ESVSB) and Willem VanGemeren (for NLTSB) privilege in their notes a christological reading. Indeed, I read their notes as implying that the text makes no sense except on that reading.

The “through-the-prism-of-the-NT-alone” principle is not carried through consistently in either Study Bible. In the case of Psalm 2, it nonetheless predominates in both Study Bibles. The result is deeply problematic.

A Historical Plain Sense Reading of Psalm 2

It stands to reason that Old Testament texts made sense to their original authors and audience. In the case of Psalm 2, Judaism and Christianity came to read it as a depiction of the ideal future Davidic King or Messiah. But once upon a time, the text was what it still is, on a plain, common-sense reading of it: the official response of the Davidic king to a revolt by vassal kingdoms. It makes sense on those terms.

Psalm 2 also makes sense as a piece incorporated into the Temple liturgy and understood paradigmatically, that is, as describing an ideal state of affairs, what should be the case, even if it wasn’t, for those who recited it. It may have been used in coronation ceremonies, though that hypothesis is speculative. In any case, for the great bulk of the history of the people of Israel, its force as a counterfactual witness to the way things should be, not the way things are, has been and is enormous.

That the psalm was finally understood as a depiction of the ideal future Davidic King or Messiah is a logical development from the preceding. That Psalm 2 is Psalm 2, one of the two gateway psalms of the Psalter, suggests that it was read counterfactually, perhaps even prophetically, by the time it was given its strategic location.

A series of prophetic oracles and royal, Zion, and other psalms serve as helpful background for the purpose of understanding the historical sense of Psalm 2, in which Judah / the king / David / Zion are associated with dominion. In particular, one needs to compare Gen 49:8-12; Num 24:17-19;  2 Sam 7:8-16; 23:3-5; Isa 11:10, 13-14; 14:28-32; 16:1-5; Amos 9:11-12; and Pss 18, 20, 21, 45, 46, 48, 60; 72, 76, 87, 89, 108, 110, 132, and 144. Somewhere, somehow, I expect a first-class Study Bible to reference the deep background of a crucial text like Psalm 2.

Excursuses in NLTSB: Very Good, But Could Be Better

NLTSB has a useful excursus on “Royal Psalms” at Psalm 2.  This is a step in the right direction. The list of royal psalms is decent: Pss 2, 18, 20, 21, 45, 61, 72, 89, 101, 110, 132, and 144. Nevertheless, the focus of the excursus is not on the historical sense of the royal psalms, but on their messianic sense. The excursus is forward-looking, with a host of relevant New Testament references, but overlooks the relevant background texts in the Hebrew Bible.

The fact is, the royal psalms cannot be understood apart from, aside from psalms of Zion like 46, 48, 60, 76, 87, and 108, royal prophetic oracles, in particular, 2 Sam 7:8-16; Ps 60; Micah 5:1-6; Isa 8:23ab-9:6 (see Hans Wildberger's commentary for background and a translation); 11:1-10, 13-14; 14:28-32; 16:1-5; Amos 9:11-12; Jer 23:5-6; 30:8, 33:15-17; Ezek 34:23-31; 37:15-28; Zech 9:9-10.

It is striking that the royal prophetic oracles are never discussed as a group in NLTSB, nor are they related to the royal and Zion psalms, nor to additional texts with a royal / messianic import, such as Gen 49:8-12; Num 24:17-19; and 2 Sam 23:3-5.

Despite the fact, then, the NLTSB has a number of helpful excursuses on the Psalms which feature attention to a messianic reading thereof – for example, Royal Psalms (Ps 2); Messiah in the Psalms (2:2) (found between notes on Ps 4:5 and 4:6, which is weird); The Poor and Needy (Ps 10); Salvation in the Psalms (Ps 18); Psalms of Suffering (Ps 22) – I would note two significant drawbacks:

(1) The christological reading is done without regard for the Great Tradition of biblical exegesis, however that might be defined exactly, but inclusive certainly of the Fathers, Nicholas of Lyra, and the Reformers;

(2) As already noted, a synthetic treatment of the royal / messianic hope across all three components of the Hebrew Bible, Torah, Prophets, and Writings, is not offered.

ESVSB on its part lacks excursuses on themes spanning more than one passage altogether. This is most unfortunate.

On the other hand, among the royal and Zion psalms, royal oracles, and additional texts with royal / messianic import cited above, ESVSB’s comment on Ps 2 references 2 Sam 7; Ps 72, 89; and Gen 49 - plus, if one counts marginal cross-references, Ps 46; 18, and 110. Furthermore, ESVSB’s comment ties Ps 2 to Gen 12:1-3: 22:18, which is a nice touch. NLTSB’s comment references Ps 48, 89 and Isa 11 among the chief OT texts which relate to Ps 2 – plus, if one counts marginal cross-references, 76.

An unwavering commitment to two mutually reinforcing senses the Old Testament has, its historical sense and its christological sense, is at least as old as Keil and Delitzsch among orthodox Protestant Christian scholars. In their exegesis, both senses distinctly contribute to the projection and protection of a specifically Christian understanding of God, self, and the world. In the Study Bibles under review, the historical and christological senses tend to be conflated. The result weakens the ability of the two senses to severally contribute to the life of the people of God . In that sense, room for improvement in these Study Bibles, via an online extension, remains possible.