A Study of Psalm 72 (71) by Rev. Roland E. Murphy (review)

BOOK REVIEWS A Study of Psalm 72 (71). By Rev. Roland E. Murphy, O. Carm. Washington , D.C: The Catholic University of America Press, 1948. Pp. vii140 -Index. A Study of Psalm 72 (71) by the Rev. Roland E. Murphy, O. Carm., is a doctoral thesis submitted to the Catholic University in 1948. The author and his work meets the challenge to the Messianic interpretation of Psalm 72 (71) as expounded in the theory of Hofstil, that is court style as advocated by Hermann Gunkel, Hugo Gressmann and other modern Biblical scholars. After reviewing the theory of Hofstil, the author in his dissertation rejects this theory as inadequate. The author rejects the reasons given by the Modernists against the Messianic interpretation and shows that the Psalm is Messianic in character in accordance with the Messianic themes of the Prophets justice and peace, eternal life, national prosperity, worldwide dominion. Aided by the versions, the author gives us a critical translation of the Hebrew Text and in his commentary explains any textual changes while giving the general meaning of each verse. Finally, he gives us an historical survey of the Messianic interpretation according to Christian and Jewish understanding of the Psalm as well as modern lines of interpretation of the same. Chapter I. After studying the title of the Psalm: "Lishlomoh" the author concludes that it is not clear who is the author. Textual criticism shows that the title is critically uncertain. To date the Psalm, the furthest back we can go is David because it was to David the promise was made that the throne of his kingdom would be established forever (2 Samuel 7:13). The latest period to which we could refer the Psalm would be before the exile roughly between 900 to 600 B.C. or the period just after the exile. Hence, the author feels confident in locating the Psalm between the Prophet Isaias and the Restoration roughly 700 to 500 B.C. In discussing the literary form, the author is of the opinion that the Psalmist does not distinguish between the Jussive and Future tenses. In the final analysis these forms merge. Hence, the literary form of Psalm 72 is properly speaking prophecy; it begins with a request and merges into prophecy. 314 BOOK REVIEWS315 Chapter ?. In verse one of the Psalm the author prefers the singular judgment to the plural oí, the Massoretic text following the versions. In this he is in agreement with the Latin interpretation of the professors of the Biblical Institute. In either case, whether singular or plural, there is no substantial difference in the meaning. In verse three he omits the preposition through justice and is supported in this by the present Latin translation of the Biblical Institute. There are no other variations in his translations of the text in the first strophe verses one to four. The second strophe runs from verses five to seven. He amends verse five to read "and may he live on". In this too, our author is supported by the Biblical Institute translation, but there is place of a wish, the future tense is used "and he shall live on". In verse seven, the Massoretic text reads, 'the just man", but our author'corrects the text in the abstract form justice based on three Hebrew manuscripts, the Septuagint, Syriac, Arabic and St. Jerome. Here too he is in agreement with the Biblical Institute translation. The parallelism peace would demand the abstract righteousness. The third strophe is from verses eight to eleven. One word in this strophe causes difficulty: siyyim. It has several meanings ship, desert dweller, crier. The older versions rendered it people of the desert. Our author, with other scholars amongst them the professors of the Biblical Institute amends it to read: sarim, adversaries, or saraw, his adversaries. The fourth strophe is from verses twelve to fourteen and our author makes no emendations in the text. The fifth strophe is from verses fifteen to seventeen. Verses fifteen to sixteen, as the author says, are very difficult. The primary difficulty is who is the subject, the king or the poor. The author's translation takes the king as the subject of the first verb and...