Abstract
Intertextuality, often described as the co-presence of one text in another, is not sufficiently explained. The relationship between texts is the result of a historically and socially localized dialogue that can be traced by knowing the identities that exert their influence through their own statements. This article uses three of the phenomena of social dialogism defined by Mikhail Bakhtin to better understand the phenomenon of interpretation and transmission of Psalm 22 in communities linked to the biblical world. Developments, oppositions, and novelties are explained through ‘stylization’, ‘parodic use’, and ‘hidden polemic’.
1. Introduction
A close examination of Psalm 22 reveals its significance in shaping the narratives of Christ’s Passion in each of the canonical Gospels. The events at Calvary profoundly influenced readers of the psalm who embraced Jesus as the awaited Messiah, shedding light on its interpretation within the Christian faith. From this perspective, Ps. 22 was regarded as a prophecy fulfilled. However, a deeper analysis of the transmission and interpretation process of the psalm reveals that, like many other Old Testament texts, Ps. 22 did not have a clear and entirely predetermined interpretation. Indeed, the psalm serves more as a meeting ground for diverse groups seeking identity. As the text is transmitted, it bears the imprint of various interpretive approaches within communities. 1 Through its variants and versions, one can discern the historically and socially situated dialogism. Consequently, the emerging new texts serve as testimony to diverse and sometimes conflicting theological positions. In this article, we will examine Ps. 22 in its Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, and Syriac versions. We will also investigate expressions from the psalm found in Essene literature (1QHa) and Pharisaic literature (Pss. Sol.), New Testament texts (Gospels and Hebrews), variants of the Greek Jewish recessionists (Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion), and rabbinic literature (Targum of psalms, Pesiqta Rabbati, and Midrash Tehillim). The objective of this study is to better understand how and why Ps. 22 was interpreted from the perspectives represented by each of these texts.
Our aim is to analyse the discourses found within the texts related to the transmission of the psalm. Furthermore, we are interested in the hybridization evident in these transmissions, which arises from the balance between preserving an identity and the need to update it in response to specific historical events impacting each transmitting community.
Is Ps. 22 a messianic and universalist psalm? Or is it a nationalist psalm that speaks of a particular historical solution to a specific danger? As noted by Tull (2019: 186), commenting on a prior observation by Newsom: Acknowledgement that biblical writers [and commenters, we dare to add] do not speak in unison, but rather sponsor competing claims, and recognition that scripture does not hand constructive theologians prooftexts to plug into their systems, but rather elucidates tensions in human self-understanding, may give readers pause before electing certain biblical perspectives as central while ignoring others that merit a hearing alongside them.
2. Method
We shall draw upon Bakhtin’s theoretical framework for our analysis. As previously noted, each instance of intertextuality manifests as a ‘hybrid construction’. 2 The discourse of the initial speaker resurfaces, albeit with the distinctive voice of the subsequent speaker. This dynamic suggests that the new utterance serves a dual purpose: a referential function, directed towards its intended subject, and a critical function, evaluating the preceding viewpoint. 3 As elucidated by Bakhtin (1984: 185), ‘The chief subject of our investigation, one could even say its chief hero, will be double-voiced discourse, which inevitably arises under conditions of dialogic interaction, that is, under conditions making possible an authentic life for the word’.
I delineate three primary phenomena within this framework: ‘stylization’, ‘parody’, and ‘hidden polemic’. Stylization 4 involves the recontextualization of discourse within a new framework or ‘chronotope’. Consequently, the new user of the discourse introduces a nuanced reinterpretation of meaning due to its application in a novel context. In such instances, the relationship between the dialogic participants is typically amicable.
Parody, 5 conversely, involves the satirical appropriation of another’s discourse. Here, the new speaker employs the same linguistic elements as the original, but imbues them with an opposing meaning. This rhetorical strategy necessitates the deployment of specific linguistic indicators, while the contextual backdrop serves to accentuate the contrasting framework.
The third phenomenon, hidden polemic, 6 represents a more nuanced manifestation of intertextuality. In this instance, the second voice implicitly challenges the viewpoint of the first, while the original discourse remains unarticulated within the new speech. Instead, through subtle contextual cues, it becomes evident that a dialogue is unfolding, tacitly acknowledging but silencing the previous speech. This sophisticated methodological approach facilitates the identification and analysis of divergent perspectives within the discourse.
With this threefold instrument, I will analyse, from a broad perspective, how Ps. 22 was understood, tracing its journey through the documents that have come down to us. Importantly, our focus is not on whether there is a direct dependency between them. What interests us is understanding the relationship between the perspectives reflected in those documents. Hence, our approach may seem less rigorous from the standpoint of textual dependence. It is known that many documents that will be used in this study were fixed at the beginning of the Middle Ages. However, much of their content originates from the Tannaitic or Amoraic period. 7
3. Results
By applying the taxonomy described in the previous section to Ps. 22, we can anticipate the following dialogical relationships:
If the Masoretic Text (MT) aligns with the Hebrew Version (HV), the Septuagint (LXX) would represent a hidden polemic that renders the psalm’s text both messianic and universalist. In this way, its ambiguity is resolved.
If HV ≠ MT—a less likely possibility—and we assume that HV and the LXX are more closely aligned, then the LXX would be a stylization of the HV. In this case, the MT would represent a later hidden polemic, rejecting the universalist messianism of the earlier version.
The interpretation of Ps. 22 in the New Testament texts (the Gospels and the Letter to the Hebrews) and in Pesiqta Rabbati may represent parallel stylizations based on the LXX, though not independent. It is most plausible to assume that Pesiqta Rabbati is a stylization derived from the LXX and, at the same time, a parodic response to the perspective found in the New Testament.
Jewish revisers of the LXX bring their versions closer to MT. If HV = MT, this would suggest a stylization derived from the HV, functioning as a hidden polemic against the LXX. If HV ≠ MT (and HV = LXX), these revisers may be reflecting a hidden polemic similar to the one carried out by the MT against the LXX.
From this point, I assume HV = MT, as the MT prevails, making it unnecessary to explore the contrary possibility.
Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, Eusebius, or the Syro-Hexaplar version of the psalm may be interpreted as stylizations of the HV as hidden polemic against the LXX.
Targum of psalms can be seen as a stylization of the HV, distinct from the LXX.
Midrash Tehillim appears to represent another stylization derived from the HV, likely incorporating a hidden polemic against both the New Testament and Pesiqta Rabbati.
4. Discussion
4.1 Hebrew and Greek Ps. 22
The first notable difference when comparing the Hebrew Version (HV) and the Septuagint (LXX) is that the supplicant in the HV professes his innocence. He claims that he is being pursued without cause and cries out to Yhwh, but complains that his plea goes unheard. The supplicant in the LXX, however, adopts a different stance. Indeed, in vv. 2 and 3, two differences observed in the Greek text explicitly indicate that the Greek supplicant feels guilty as he confesses his ‘transgressions’ and ‘foolishness’, respectively. While the text of v. 2 in the HV states, ‘Far from my salvation are the words of my complaint’ (רחוק מישׁועתי דברי שׁאנתי), the LXX reads, ‘Far from my salvation are the words [the count] of my transgressions’ (μακρὰν ἀπὸ τῆς σωτηρίας μου οἱ λόγοι τῶν παραπτωμάτων μου). Furthermore, in v. 3, the terms ‘rest’ (HV) and ‘foolishness’ (LXX) are contrasted. While the Hebrew states, ‘I cry out by day, and You will not answer; and by night, and [there will be] no rest for me’ (אקרא יומם ולא תענה ולילה ולא דומיה לי), the Greek asserts, ‘I will cry out by day, and You will not hear; and by night, and You will not [hear] my foolishness’ (κεκράξομαι ἡμέρας καὶ οὐκ εἰσακούσῃ καὶ νυκτός καὶ οὐκ εἰς ἄνοιαν ἐμοί).
As is typical in the HV, the meaning of the text is imprecise and carries a degree of ambiguity. It is clear that the supplicant suffers persecution from enemies and intensely expresses how distanced they feel from the deity’s protective arm. However, there is no acknowledgement of whether they deserve either persecution by opponents or the withholding of divine salvation; the matter is left unresolved. By contrast, the expressions in the LXX reveal a confession of some kind of guilt, suggesting that the divine distance and persecution by enemies are a rightful punishment for some prior ‘transgressions’. This characterization of the protagonist in the text is paramount for understanding how Ps. 22 was interpreted throughout its transmission. We will see that the use of this psalm and its distinctive expressions provided an opportunity to highlight an intriguing theological debate in the intersection of diverse traditions tied to collective identities in formation.
As we will see, some significant documents from the Judean Desert reflect a mindset similar to the Greek version of Ps. 22. For this reason, it may be suggested that the HV might not align with the MT. In that case, the MT in vv. 2–3 could represent a hidden polemic against the LXX, and it is possible to propose an HV closer to the LXX, from which the latter was derived through stylization.
After the beginning of the psalm, where the noted variant is observed, the psalm flows without significant differences throughout a large section (vv. 4–29). In this part, only variations in verb tenses appear, which is common in the Book of psalms and has no particular implications for our study. 8 However, upon reaching the final verses (vv. 30–32), we encounter some significant differences regarding the resolution of the drama of the supplicant in Ps. 22.
After confessing God’s supremacy over the powerful ones of the Earth (v. 29), the psalmist declares that their ultimate fate is death and that all of them will ultimately worship the true God. This is expressed in a difficult and ambiguous manner, but the general meaning can be discerned. The significant difference emerges at the end of v. 30. The HV conveys the collective end of the powerful ones, who do not survive God’s might: ‘and their soul did not endure’ (ונפשׁו לא חיה), while the LXX concludes the verse with an individual and positive turn: ‘and my soul lives for Him’ (καὶ ἡ ψυχή μου αὐτῷ ζῇ). This contrast is striking, representing a stark opposition in meaning.
This difference is crucial because the possessive pronoun μου will soon appear in vv.31–32 of the LXX, where it plays a significant role compared to the HV. The shift from a third-person collective to a first-person singular perspective had already appeared in v. 25, emphasizing the specific and personal character of the psalm in the LXX. This alteration makes the Greek version of the psalm better suited to a messianic interpretation.
Indeed, while the HV states, ‘And He did not hide His face from him; and when he cried to Him, He listened’ (ולא הסתיר פניו ממנו ובשׁועו אליו שׁמע), the LXX reads, ‘And He did not turn His face from me; and when I cried to Him, He listened to me’ (οὐδὲ ἀπέστρεψεν τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ καὶ ἐν τῷ κεκραγέναι με πρὸς αὐτὸν εἰσήκουσέν μου).
This contrast highlights how the texts present a collective and exclusivist vision in the HV and a more universalist, individual-centred perspective in the LXX, linked to a messianic conception.
This final aspect becomes more pronounced in the closing verses of the psalm. It must be acknowledged that the HV presents a tortuous path to understanding its text due to its ambiguity. V. 31 states, ‘A seed will serve Him. It will be recounted to the Lord concerning the next generation / It will be recounted concerning the Lord to the next generation’ (זרע יעבדנו יספר לאדני לדור). The double ל makes it impossible to distinguish the indirect object, although the first option seems more likely.
The LXX is easier to understand, especially considering that the first-person pronoun matches the one that appears at the end of the previous verse: ‘And my offspring will serve Him; the coming generation will be proclaimed to the Lord’ (καὶ τὸ σπέρμα μου δουλεύσει αὐτῷ ἀναγγελήσεται τῷ κυρίῳ γενεὰ ἡ ἐρχομένη).
When reading this final section of Ps. 22 according to the HV, it must be acknowledged that it is not easy to determine to whom the psalmist is referring. Certainly, the distinction between the nations and enemies, on the one hand, and the faithful people who suffer and will witness the definitive saving action of God, on the other, is clear. In this version, there are only two ‘actants’. However, in the LXX, the narrative appears to suggest something new that is about to emerge, constituting a third entity on the verge of being born: a [new] generation that is coming (γενεὰ ἡ ἐρχομένη). This will be important to consider in later interpretations of Ps. 22.
What has just been mentioned becomes even clearer in v. 32. The HV states, ‘And let them proclaim His righteousness to a people born’ (ויגידו צדקתו לעם נולד). However, the LXX says, ‘And they will proclaim His righteousness to a people yet to be born’ (καὶ ἀναγγελοῦσιν τὴν δικαιοσύνην αὐτοῦ λαῷ τῷ τεχθησομένῳ). The Greek future participle makes the generation mentioned in the LXX a future one, giving the individual figure embodying the drama of the psalm messianic traits that can be linked to the figure of the suffering servant in Isaiah. 9
The nifal participle נולד, referring to a ‘people’, indicates a near and present reality—namely, the Jewish people. However, the meaning of the text remains somewhat unclear. The LXX is much more explicit: It speaks of something new that will happen in the future. It is not something already born or currently being born but something that ‘is to be born’: a generation that will come, that is ‘yet to come’.
Since the Dead Sea Scrolls do not preserve the texts of the verses studied, we must consider the MT as the most reliable version of Ps. 22. What has been preserved in the manuscripts from the Judean Desert confirms this version (4Q88 [vv. 14–17] and the Nahal Hever Psalms [vv. 4–9, 15–21]) in the sections of the psalm where the HV and the LXX do not differ substantially. What stands out in the comparison between the HV and the LXX is that the LXX is a less ambiguous version, and the character praying the psalm has a marked individual dimension, being considered guilty and suffering as a result of transgressions. Moreover, this suffering will lead to the salvation of a collective reality: a new people linked to the Jewish people.
Following the typology of dialogical phenomena offered by Bakhtin, we can affirm that the LXX would be a stylization of the HV if we assume that the HV does not align with the MT (HV ≠ MT). In this case, the MT would be a later hidden polemic against the LXX, modifying the text to make it more ambiguous.
In the opposite case (HV = MT), the dialogical relationship would be one of a hidden polemic (due to the modifications in vv. 2–3 and 30–32), in which the LXX would evolve the understanding of Ps. 22 toward a messianic vision and a logic of vicarious sacrifice. It is clear that the MT displays an ambiguous, collective, somewhat nationalist mindset, not necessarily messianic, in which the people are portrayed as innocent sufferers. The LXX, however, is a messianic version in which a singular individual takes on the responsibility of an expanded or renewed people, assuming the collective guilt.
Although we do not have witnesses of Ps. 22 in the Dead Sea Scrolls which are relevant for our analysis, some fragments from the Hodayot 10 stand out. In several parts of these hymns, the similarities to known expressions from Ps. 22 are clear. It is surprising to find that, in these hymns, the supplicant’s confession of guilt is explicitly stated. It can be observed that the mentality of 1QHa is quite close to what is perceived in the LXX. This makes it plausible to suggest that the mentality present in the MT could have been a modification of a non-proto-Masoretic tradition—earlier and closer to the LXX—which would evolve toward a viewpoint more aligned with the Hasmonean mindset. This perspective would not view a messianic interpretation of Ps. 22 favourably. In that case, the MT would be later and distinct from the LXX, and the MT would not align with the HV 11 . In that case, what we have in the MT in vv. 2–3 and 30–32 would be a hidden polemic that nullifies the messianic approach of the psalm, reducing its meaning to something already established in the socio-political and religious context of the Hasmonean period.
4.2 Ps. 22 and the NT
The perspective present in the LXX appears in other significant Jewish works of the time, such as the psalms of Solomon (1st century BCE). A certain convergence can be observed between this Pharisaic work, with its intense messianism, and the Judeo-Christian thought reflected in the New Testament texts. Although the psalms of Solomon neither reproduce nor comment on Ps. 22, in Ps. Sol. 18.6–7, we find this enlightening text (Charlesworth, 1985: 669): ‘Blessed are those born in those days, to see the good things of the Lord which he will do for the coming generation; (which will be) under the rod of discipline of the Lord Messiah in the fear of his God, in wisdom of spirit, and of righteousness and of strength …’.
Ps. 22 is one of the most significant psalms for the New Testament. It is a text that decisively influenced the shaping of the accounts of Jesus Christ’s passion (McCaffrey, 1980). We must understand that the psalm was a well-known text to the witnesses of Christ’s life. In this sense, although the psalm itself had its own life and was part of an interpretative tradition, the ‘additional’ meaning that emerged in the Judeo-Christian context arose from the specific context in which it was understood and reinterpreted—namely, the passion, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
This phenomenon of Judeo-Christian ‘re-figuration’ differed from the more traditional and general approach that Jewish communities developed after 70 CE. In other words, what Ps. 22 generically and ‘typically’ expresses about a persecuted innocent, the Judeo-Christians applied to the specific case of Jesus Christ. In fact, concrete application to the listener became secondary, serving as a model for understanding the Christian life through identification with the life of the Master.
In earlier and later Jewish interpretations, the psalm was most likely understood collectively in light of the successive defeats experienced. However, after 30 CE, for Christians, the psalm was a prophecy fulfilled on Calvary, with the ‘people yet to be born’ referring to the church, which celebrated ‘eucharistically’—in thanksgiving—the renewal of that event on Calvary. Furthermore, the life of the faithful Christian was understood as an identification with Jesus. This is the experience of all times: accepting the cross out of love for the ‘people yet to be born’ in every generation.
In this sense, we can affirm that the reception of Ps. 22 in the New Testament was accomplished through a stylization derived from the LXX. The best way to see this is through the connection of the psalm with the Letter to the Hebrews. A well-known passage helps situate the reception of the psalm (Heb. 5.7–10): 7 ὃς ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ δεήσεις τε καὶ ἱκετηρίας πρὸς τὸν δυνάμενον σῴζειν αὐτὸν ἐκ θανάτου μετὰ κραυγῆς ἰσχυρᾶς καὶ δακρύων προσενέγκας καὶ εἰσακουσθεὶς ἀπὸ τῆς εὐλαβείας,8 καίπερ ὢν υἱός, ἔμαθεν ἀφ᾽ ὧν ἔπαθεν τὴν ὑπακοήν,9 καὶ τελειωθεὶς ἐγένετο πᾶσιν τοῖς ὑπακούουσιν αὐτῷ αἴτιος σωτηρίας αἰωνίου,10 προσαγορευθεὶς ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ ἀρχιερεὺς κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μελχισέδεκ.
With these words, it is clearly expressed that the community to whom the Letter to the Hebrews was addressed regarded Jesus of Nazareth as a heavenly being sent as an expiatory sacrifice that established a new covenant. He took on, by the command of the Father, the role of both priest and victim. In this way, Ps. 22 was seen as a fulfilled prophecy.
Nevertheless, a biblical argument was still needed to adequately connect this sacrifice with the beneficiaries of that covenant. Here, the author of the letter finds a solid argument by quoting the final part of the psalm according to the LXX with its universalism and acknowledgment of guilt that requires atonement (Heb. 2.10–12): 10 ἔπρεπεν γὰρ αὐτῷ, δι᾽ ὃν τὰ πάντα καὶ δι᾽ οὗ τὰ πάντα, πολλοὺς υἱοὺς εἰς δόξαν ἀγαγόντα τὸν ἀρχηγὸν τῆς σωτηρίας αὐτῶν διὰ παθημάτων τελειῶσαι.11 ὅ τε γὰρ ἁγιάζων καὶ οἱ ἁγιαζόμενοι ἐξ ἑνὸς πάντες· δι᾽ ἣν αἰτίαν οὐκ ἐπαισχύνεται ἀδελφοὺς αὐτοὺς καλεῖν 12 λέγων· ἀπαγγελῶ τὸ ὄνομά σου τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς μου, ἐν μέσῳ ἐκκλησίας ὑμνήσω σε (Ps. 22.23).
The author of Hebrews, referring to Ps. 22.23, establishes the link between the protagonist of the psalm (Jesus) and the collective subject, who is the recipient of his priestly mediation. His sufferings—recounted in detail in the psalm—are the means through which many sons have been sanctified. It is he who, in the midst of the Christian liturgical celebration, brings about the true and total worship of God. The reading of the psalm in a Judeo-Christian environment is not linked to a historical and collective interpretation in a nationalistic key. The scope of interpretation is universal and eschatological. What is pointed out by the interpretation of Ps. 22.31–32 according to the version of the LXX is made even more concrete. The three ‘actants’ are the messianic personage (Jesus), the Jewish people, and the new people who offer worship, a people who ‘must be born’ because they did not exist before. This is the ἐκκλησία (church) born from the death and resurrection of Jesus. The Judeo-Christian reading, then, is a stylization that develops the stylization displayed by the LXX since the HV.
[T]he mainstream Christian understanding of Psalm 22 was as a prophetic indication of the passion of Christ and, in its final verses, of the future coming of the kingdom. This interpretation was constant through the centuries. When Theodore of Mopsuestia asserted that the psalm is not prophetic, his view was ‘disapproved at the Second (Fifth Ecumenical) Council of Constantinople and condemned by Pope Vigilius on May 14/24, 533.’
12
We can anticipate here something surprising that we will see a little later. The same perspective found in the NT texts will appear in Pesiqta Rabbati. This work devotes several chapters to describing a future, definitive messiah who will suffer for the chosen people in order to secure their liberation and the reparation of their faults. This group of Jews will stylize the psalm in the same way as the Judeo-Christians, but projected into a distant future, and in a clear parodic interpretation of another’s speech (the Christian one).
4.3 Greek Recensionists and the Syriac version
It is easy to suppose that the Christian reading had to prompt a reaction within the Jewish world, which did not accept the new faith emerging from the apostolic preaching. If we observe the process of recension of the LXX and the diffusion of Judaism in the Syriac sphere, we will understand the implicit dialogism.
Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, Eusebius and the Syro-Hexaplar version of the psalm clearly modified v. 2 to bring it closer to the MT 13 . Thus, they preserve in their respective texts a translation more faithful to the Hebrew, thereby respecting the ambiguity of the speaker of the psalm. We have seen that the LXX translation suggested that God was far from ‘the words of my transgressions’ (‘οἱ λόγοι τῶν παραπτωμάτων μου’). However, A’ substitutes that expression, which refers to some ‘transgressions’, for the words ‘ῥηματα βρυχήματός μου’ (‘some words of my roaring/brimming’). Σ performs the same dialogic operation of ‘backtracking’ to the MT by saying, ‘οἱ λόγοι τῶν ὀδυρμῶν μου’ (‘the words of my lament/complaint’). For their part, Θ and Eusebius supply, ‘οἱ λόγοι τῆς βοήσεώς μου’ (‘the words of my cry [for help]’). Finally, the Syro-Hexaplar version of the psalm stylizes in a more elegant way than the previous versions the text of MT offering, ‘οἱ λόγοι τῶν δεήσεών μου’ (‘the words of my supplications/prayers’).
As can be seen, these versions nullify the explicit confession of guilt made by the prayerful one in the LXX. In this sense, they can be considered a stylization of the MT and a hidden polemic against the LXX, which is always in front of him. It is clear that the speaker in these versions feels persecuted while simultaneously professing his innocence.
The Syriac version of the psalm takes a different approach, perhaps due to Christian influence. 14 In any case, this version’s dependence on the LXX is well known. In this sense, the psalm in Syriac follows the Greek version and can also be considered a stylization.
4.4 Targum of Ps. 22
The targumic version of the psalm belongs to a time when Judaism was already centred in the synagogue and in a diaspora that did not expect to return to the Land or worship in its Temple. The hope is instead distant and eschatological: It is a Judaism among the nations that cultivates the study of the Torah and wants to make it the centre of its life. In the Targumic version of the psalm, we see that there is no longer a historical and political solution; rather, the hope of victory over the nations has a religious character. It is similar to what is done in the Judeo-Christian sphere, not as something already established, but rather as something that is expected in the distant future. Moreover, it does not speak of a specific individual intermediary. Instead, the psalm personifies Israel as the speaker of the poem. For that reason, the logic of this translation includes only two ‘actants’. On the one hand, there is Israel in diaspora and suffering; on the other hand, there is a Jewish people who have not been born and who are envisioned in the distant future. This is evident in vv. 31–32 15 .
We offer the Aramaic text and the English translation with italics marking the differences with respect to the MT: זרעיה דאברהם יפלחון קדמוי ויחוון כח גבורתא דיהוה לדרא בתראה׃ יתובון 2 ייתון בניהון ויתנון צדקתיה לעמיה דעתיד למילד פרישׁן דעבד׃1 Tg.Ps. 22.31–32: ‘31 The seed of Abraham shall worship before him; they shall tell of the strength of the might of the Lord to the next generation. 32 Their sons shall come and tell of his righteousness to a people yet to be born, the wonders he has performed’.
The text seems to speak of a generation of Jews who will emerge at a pivotal moment and will recognize in an intense way the wonders performed by God after a prolonged time of suffering. The psalm thus appears to be an invitation to hope during a prolonged period of difficulty. From the dialogical point of view, it is clear that a stylization takes place, in this case distinct from that visible in the LXX, for this version clearly indicates that the suffering subject in the psalm is innocent. As we shall see later, this way of understanding and communicating the poem will be intensified in the commentary present in Midrash Tehillim.
4.5 Pesiqta Rabbati 36–37
Before concluding this diachronic and intertextual study, it is worthwhile considering the point of view offered by Pesiqta Rabbati. 16 This work could have been written between the 5th and 8th centuries CE, drawing on an oral tradition of the 4th century CE—which may preserve materials from the 1st–3rd centuries CE. 17 The difficulty of dating rabbinic materials is well known. However, we can situate the point of view presented in this work at least in an epoch parallel to the origins of Christianity, already developed in the patristic tradition.
[I]t is impossible to draw any conclusions regarding the entire content of Pesiqta Rabbati in its early stages of transmission. The material preserved in Pesiqta Rabbati is of a much earlier date than the extant manuscripts. The oldest rabbinic authorities mentioned are Hillel and Shammai (1st century B.C.E) and Rabbi Yoḥanan b. Zakkai (1st century C.E.), whereas most of the rabbis cited in the text can be dated to the 3rd and 4th century C.E.—specific examples include Pesiqta Rabbati 5:16 which has a dictum in the name of Shimon b. Yosena (c. 270 C.E.); Pesiqta Rabbati 1:1 has a dictum in the name of Shimon b. Abba (c. 280 C.E.). The nonhalakhic, exegetical or narrative, passages are often parallel to aggadic material in other major Midrashim, which in most cases does not assist dating efforts.
18
We can be certain that the Jewish group to which this work belongs had time to become acquainted with the Christian use of the psalm. This makes it plausible that the dialogism within this work involved a clear parodic use of another’s speech. 19
In PR 36.3, the angels [demons] defeated by a divine power ask God about the instrument he has used to orchestrate their downfall. God tells them of a Messiah whose name is Ephraim. In PR 36.4, a dialogue begins between this Messiah and God. In this dialogue, God asks Ephraim to bear the sins of the people, and he accepts. The quotation begins with God’s words to Ephraim: ‘In the future the sins of those that have been hidden with you will bring you under an iron yoke. They will make you like a calf whose eyes grew dim; and they will choke your spirit with a yoke; and because of their sins your tongue will stick to the roof of your mouth (Ps 22:16). Are you willing [to endure] this?’ The Messiah said before the Holy One: ‘Will this suffering [last] many years?’ The Holy One said to him: ‘By your life and the life of My head! I have decreed for you a week [a seven-year period]. If your soul is saddened, I will immediately banish [the sinful souls hidden with you].’ [The Messiah] said before Him: ‘Master of the universe, I will take this upon myself with a joyful soul and a glad heart, so that no one in Israel will perish; [that] not only those who are alive be saved in my days, but also those who are dead, who have died since [the days] of the first human being up until now, be saved in my days; {and not only these, but also the aborted ones be saved in my days}, and not only those be saved in my days, but also those who You thought to create but were not created. Such [are the things] I wish for, and for this I am ready to take [all this] upon myself.’ {At the same time, the Holy One blessed be He, appointed for the Messiah the four creatures who will carry the Messiah’s throne of glory.}
20
In the next part of the text, there is an explicit quotation of Isa. 42.1, which testifies to the identification of the character of Ps. 22 and the Servant of the Songs of the Prophet. As can be seen, the interpretation is very similar to that of the Judeo-Christians; the difference is that it is considered a future and distant event. Additionally, it is confined to a national sphere in which there is no openness to the nations, which are still considered hostile and idolatrous. Their conversion and acceptance of the God of Israel as the one and universal God are not expected. 21
In PR 36.6, the narrator recounts the suffering of the Messiah and his complaint by quoting Ps. 22.16. At that point, God answers him, saying: Ephraim, My righteous Messiah, You have already accepted [this suffering] since the six days of Creation. Now your suffering is like My suffering, because since the day on which evil Nebuchadnezzar destroyed My Temple and burned My sanctuary, and exiled My children among the nations of the world, by your life and by the life of My head! I have not gone to My throne. And if you do not believe Me, see the dew that is on My head, as it is said: My head is filled with dew (Cant 5:2).
22
This section concludes with the Messiah’s response to those words of God: ‘Master of the world, now my mind is at rest, since it is sufficient for the servant to be like his Master’. 23 The text continues with repetitions and intensifications in the style of those already described. 24 The suffering accepted by this Messiah, who vicariously atones for the sin of his people, is thus dramatized.
The surprising perspective of Pesiqta Rabbati differs from the more classical and common position found in the Targum of psalms and, as we shall see shortly, in Midrash Tehillim. It is easy to infer the influence of the Christian interpretation, but this time as a foil for Pesiqta Rabbati, which clearly responds in a polemical mode. A Messiah sent by God will achieve, through his suffering, the liberation of the Jewish people from the oppression of the nations. To accomplish this, the aggadic homilies of Pesiqta Rabbati draw on the fusion of texts from Isaiah and the psalms, especially Ps. 22 and the Suffering Servant passages. All this is reminiscent of the Christian interpretation, which is undoubtedly known, and undoubtedly parodied by Pesiqta Rabbati, which can be considered a stylization of the text of the psalm (possibly derived from the LXX) along lines rather different from the Christian interpretation. This can be affirmed because Pesiqta Rabbati repeatedly emphasizes that the people are guilty of the crimes for which they require atonement.
While the direct influence of the Christian interpretation of Psalm 22, referring to the suffering Jesus on the cross, upon the Jewish interpretation in Pesiqta Rabbati is an open question, the midrashic interpretation may be a polemic reaction to the Christian interpretation. The evidence for the Christian connection between Psalm 22 with Jesus on the cross predates this psalm’s association with the Messiah in Judaism. In both traditions, the psalm is identified with a central figure bringing about final salvation at the end of days. Psalm 22 is critical to the Christian fulfillment theory, culminating in the Christological interpretation of that psalm. The Jewish response to a suffering Messiah inverts the Christian interpretation by making Psalm 22 applicable to a future Messiah, Ephraim.
25
Pesiqta Rabbati is a collection of homilies in which biblical commentary is facilitated by interweaving texts with elements that allow their interconnection. The texts indicated that refer to Ps. 22 originate from a desire to comment on Isa. 60.1–2. In fact, this is explicitly stated in PR 36.1: {Lectionary portion} Arise, shine; for your light has come, {and the glory of the Lord has risen upon you} (Isa 60:1–2). This is what David king of Israel said in the Holy Spirit: For with you is the fountain of life; in your light [do we see light] (Ps 36:10). What did [David] refer to when he said this? He said it solely in reference to the congregation of Israel. The congregation of Israel said before the Holy One: Master of the world, on account of the Torah that you gave me, which is called fountain of life (ibid.), I will enjoy Your light in the time-to-come.
26
The connection with Ps. 22 is in its title. Ps. 22:1 says, ‘For the Leader; upon the hint of the morning’. The ‘morning’ of which it speaks is interpreted in a messianic key, creating a relationship between many passages of Isaiah and the psalms. As this set of links was well known and traditional, it is not surprising that Midrash Tehillim 22 exploits the same stylistic resources.
4.6 Midrash Tehillim
This important work, dated to the 8th–10th centuries CE, continues the chain of transmission under examination. The most surprising aspect of the commentary is that it pays less attention to the text of the psalm and focuses more on the context in which it should be understood. To this end, the commentator exploits the title of the psalm and asks about the meaning of the reference to the ‘hind’. The reasoning is complex, but it can be followed with some patience: God gives darkness to all alike in this world, God in the time-to-come will say only to Israel: Arise, shine, for thy light is come … darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the peoples; but upon thee the Lord will arise (Isa. 60:2). R. Hanina also said: The words The Lord is good to all (Ps. 145:9) mean that the Lord is good to all only in this world. But it is said of the world-to-come in the time-to-come Do good, O Lord, unto those that are good, and to them that are upright in their hearts (Ps. 125:4). Even so, Mordecai and Esther were a darkness for the gentiles; but for the Jews they were a light, for it is said, on account of Mordecai and Esther The Jews had light and gladness, and joy and honor (Esther 8:16). Why is Esther called Hadassah? Esther means ‘the hidden one’; for she remained hidden fast in her chambers; but she came forth into the world when there was need of her to give light to Israel. As for her name Hadassah, of which it is written Mordecai … brought up Hadassah (‘myrtle’) (Esther 2:7), it was given to her because of her righteousness. Mordecai, too, was called Hadas or ‘myrtle’, this being a name for righteous men as in the verse I saw a man riding upon a red horse, and he stood among the myrtle-trees (Zech. 1:8).
27
Throughout the commentary, Midrash Tehillim connects the content of Ps. 22 to the narrative of the book of Esther. 28 In this way, the midrashist interprets the psalm in continuity with the point of view of innocent Jews persecuted in a hostile diaspora, who will be saved at their moment of greatest anguish. It does not refer to an eschatological Messiah but rather presents the paradigm of a historical phenomenon that requires patience and the heroism of historical figures who are faithful to the Law of the Lord. In that sense, from a dialogical point of view, the viewpoint in Midrash Tehillim appears to be a stylization of the HV. At the same time, it could be understood as a hidden polemic against both the NT and Pesiqta Rabbati. This can be postulated both from the content of the work and from the fact that it modifies the text in the sense that it does not quote vv. 28 and 29, 29 which speak of dominion over the nations and their conversion to the true God. This silence can only be understood as part of a dialogical context of a hidden polemic, as the commentary of Midrash Tehillim changes the text it comments on by omitting those two important verses.
The exclusion of those verses modifies the psalm itself and emphasises the orientation of vv. 31–32. The commentary itself makes this clear: Midrash Tehillim’s point of view is not concerned with foreigners and suggests looking not to the future, but to the past, to find how to live in the present: R. Yudan said: From what the Holy One, blessed be He, has done for you in this world, you may guess what is prepared for you in the world-to-come. A seed shall serve Him; it shall be told of the Lord unto the next generation (Ps. 22:31). R. Eleazar said: A seed shall serve Him refers only to those who are of seed that has come to fruition in live-birth, and excludes still-births which will not have life even in the world-to-come. For it is said in the following verse They shall come and shall declare His righteousness unto a people that shall be born, that He hath done it (Ps. 22:32), and the phrase that shall be born clearly refers to those who are of seed that come into live-birth. R. Yudan said: The verse just cited means that later generations shall come and declare the righteousness which the Holy One, blessed be He, has done for former generations.
30
It is clear that if the story of Esther, Mordecai and Haman is considered the proper context of Ps. 22, the generation spoken of cannot be the same as the one spoken of in the Letter to the Hebrews.
5. Conclusions
At the end of this journey through the use of Ps. 22 in the life of various collective identities, we can conclude that the texts, within their developing canon, are not isolated entities. Rather, they are a repertoire of discourses that are reused in the human dialogic enterprise. It is reasonable to intuit that this phenomenon manifests in a singular way during the celebratory moments specific to each liturgy. In both the rabbinic and Christian traditions, the figures of Esther and Jesus were key to the understanding of Ps. 22.
The close association between Psalm 22 and these two individuals is further emphasized by new ritual settings that emerge for the psalm within Judaism and Christianity. In each religious tradition, this psalm came to be incorporated as a yearly scriptural reading during commemorations of pivotal moments in, respectively, Esther’s or Jesus’ life. The annual readings of Psalm 22 on Purim during the Middle Ages, and on Good Friday ever since the time of the church fathers, give voice to the anguish of Esther and Jesus, through whom the communities experienced deliverance. The fact that this psalm is not used liturgically at other times during the year in Judaism or Christianity, as part of the synagogue service or the Catholic mass for example, highlights the unique connection between the psalm and the figures of Esther and Jesus.
31
At this point, we can affirm that the typology comprising the three Bakhtinian dialogical phenomena—stylization, parodic use, and hidden polemic—serves as an effective instrument for analysing and explaining the phenomena of hybridization of utterances. In biblical studies, authors such as Tull have pointed to the importance of Bakhtinian thought to better understand the phenomena of intertextuality. 32 With the methodology tested here and in other works, 33 we believe the proposal is valid and effective. Perhaps the missing element is a set of universally accepted definitions that support academic debate and facilitate rigorous and precise analyses without disregarding some texts labelled as ‘false quotations’ while still avoiding what has been referred to as ‘parallelomania’. Such definitions will enable us to identify when there is a ‘continuity’ or a ‘discontinuity’ in the historical development of the understanding and use of a particular text within each social group where it is canonically important.
Footnotes
1.
2.
‘What we are calling a hybrid construction is an utterance that belongs, by its grammatical (syntactic) and compositional markers, to a single speaker, but that actually contains mixed within it two utterances, two speech manners, two styles, two “languages”, two semantic and axiological belief systems. We repeat there is no formal—compositional and syntactic—boundary between these utterances, styles, languages, belief systems; the division of voices and languages takes place within the limits of a single syntactic whole, often within the limits of a simple sentence. It frequently happens that even one and the same word will belong simultaneously to two languages, two belief systems that intersect in a hybrid construction and, consequently, the word has two contradictory meanings, two accents’ (Bakhtin, 1981: 304‒5).
3.
‘All these phenomena, despite very real differences among them, share one common trait: discourse in them has a twofold direction—it is directed both toward the referential object of speech, as in ordinary discourse, and toward another’s discourse, toward someone else’s speech. If we do not recognize the existence of this second context of someone else’s speech and begin to perceive stylization or parody in the same way ordinary speech is perceived, that is, as a speech directed only at its referential object, then we will not grasp these phenomena in their essence: stylization will be taken for style, parody simply for a poor work of art’ (
: 185).
4.
‘[The stylizer] uses another’s discourse precisely as other and in so doing casts a slight shadow of objectification over it. To be sure, the discourse does not become an object. After all, what is important to the stylizer is the sum total of devices associated with the other’s speech precisely as an expression of the particular point of view. He works with someone else’s point of view. Therefore, a certain shadow of objectification falls precisely on that very point of view, and consequently, it becomes [conventional]. The objectified speech of a character is never [conventional]. A character always speaks in earnest. The author’s attitude does not penetrate inside his speech—the author observes it from without. [Conventional] discourse is always double-voiced discourse. Only that which was at one time [unconventional], in earnest, can become [conventional]. The original direct and [unconventional] meaning now serves new purposes, which take possession of it from within and render it [conventional]’ (Bakhtin, 1984: 189). In order to clarify the methodology, we have changed the word conditional to the term conventional. We think is better to do this because ‘[c]onventional and conditional are rendered by the same word [uslovnyi] in Russian; in English, the parallelism of this sentence is lost’ (Bakhtin, 1984: 63, see n. e).
5.
The situation is different with parody. ‘Here, as in stylization, the author again speaks in someone else’s discourse, but in contrast to stylization parody introduces into that discourse a semantic intention that is directly opposed to the original one. The second voice, once having made its home in the other’s discourse, clashes hostilely with its primordial host and forces him to serve directly opposing aims. Discourse becomes an arena of battle between two voices …; the voices are not only isolated from one another, separated by distance, but are also hostilely opposed. Thus in parody the deliberate palpability of the other’s discourse must be particularly sharp and clearly marked. Likewise, the author’s intentions must be more individualized and filled with specific content’ (Bakhtin, 1984: 193).
6.
‘In both stylization and parody … the author makes use precisely of other people’ s words for the expression of his own particular intention. In the third variety [the hidden polemic], the other person’s discourse remains outside the limits of the author’s speech, but the author’s speech takes it into account and refers to it. Another’s discourse, in this case, is not reproduced with a new intention, but it acts upon influences and, in one way or another, determines the author’s discourse, while itself remaining outside it. … In the hidden polemic the author’s discourse is directed toward its own referential object, as is any other discourse, but at the same time every statement about the object is constructed in such a way that, apart from its referential meaning, a polemical blow is struck at the other’s discourse on the same theme, at the other’s statement about the same object. A word, directed toward its referential object, clashes with another’s word within the very object itself. The other’s discourse is not itself reproduced, it is merely implied, but the entire structure of speech would be completely different if there were not this reaction to another person’s implied words. … In a hidden polemic, on the other hand, the other’s words are treated antagonistically, and this antagonism, no less than the very topic being discussed, is what determines the author’s discourse. This radically changes the semantics of the discourse involved: alongside its referential meaning there appears a second meaning—an intentional orientation toward someone else’s word. Such discourse cannot be fundamentally or fully understood if one takes into consideration only its direct referential meaning. The polemical coloration of the discourse appears in other pure language features as well: in intonation and syntactic construction’ (Bakhtin, 1984: 195‒96).
7.
The aim of this study is to understand Ps. 22 from its position as part of the Book of psalms onward. The perspective is historical, social, and theological, moving forward from the 2nd century BCE. For a more traditional historical-critical approach, see . This article also highlights the possibility that, in its ancient origin, Ps. 22 reflects a desire to bring together diverse peoples during the process of shaping historical Israel at the beginning of Iron Age II.
8.
From this section, the words that have sparked the most discussion are those in Ps. 22.17b. The text in the MT is enigmatic, and the LXX does not offer much help in understanding the intended meaning. For useful approaches to this issue, see Vall (1997), Kaltner (1998), Strawn (2000), Swenson (2004), and . These studies attempt to correct the text and identify possible errors in its transmission, employing traditional techniques of textual criticism. Our study takes an approach based on a complementary methodology. For the purpose of our research, we believe that Ps. 22.17b does not present elements relevant to the stated objective. This series of publications testify to the problem of ‘endless assumptions’ inherent in the historical-critical method.
10.
‘But you, when my heart turned to water confirmed my soul in your covenant’ (1QHa X,28) (García‒Martínez, 1996: 330). ‘And dread and dismay have gripped me, all my /bones/ have fractured, my heart has melted like wax in front of the fire, my knees give way like water which flows down a slope, for I have remembered my faults with the disloyalty of my ancestors, when the wicked rose up against your covenant and the doomed against your word. I said “For my sin I have been barred from your covenant”. But when I remembered the strength of your hand. … For you have supported me by your kindnesses and by your abundant compassion. Because you atone for sin and cle[anse man] of his fault through your justice’ (1QHa XII,33–35.37) (García‒Martínez, 1996: 336). ‘For you, my God, hid me from the sons of man, concealed your law in me, until the moment of revealing your salvation through me. For in the distress of my soul you heard my call, you identified the outcry of my pain in my complaint and saved the soul of the poor man in the lair of lions, who sharpen their tongue like swords. And you, my God, you closed {their tongue} their teeth so they would not rip up {my} the soul of the poor and wretched; their tongue has been drawn in like a sword into the scabbard, so that it would not [destroy] the soul of your servant’ (1QHa XIII,11–15) (García‒Martínez, 1996: 337).
11.
‘Each of these cases of potential documentation of proto-MT recensions is uncertain, yet they provide tantalizing potential access to forms of redaction that otherwise would be virtually impossible to uncover, redaction associated with the final formation of the proto-MT recensions of several biblical books. This does not mean, it must be stressed, that the LXX (and/or Samaritan Pentateuch or non-MT Qumran manuscripts) in these and other cases always or even generally preserves the earlier text. On the contrary, we have ample evidence that the LXX recensions of biblical books (and other early textual traditions) experienced their own developments, often containing elements … that post-date their MT counterparts. The relative antiquity of the proto-MT base text may stem in part from the fact that the Hasmoneans, as high priests of the Jerusalem temple, had access to the temple archive and thus their scribes could use (as a basis for the proto-MT editions) reference exemplars of biblical books kept there that likely were more ancient than their counterparts elsewhere. The main point here is that the LXX, along with other early manuscript witnesses, often at least partially reflects recensions of biblical books that pre-date their proto-MT versions. Thus, at least in these respects, the LXX and/or other textual witnesses may provide insight into an earlier recensional stage of a given biblical book, even in cases where such witnesses also preserve many inferior individual readings for texts in that book. As Schenker puts it, the proto-MT appears in numerous instances to be a comparatively ancient text that was literarily revised in the Hasmonean period’ (Carr, 2011: 175–76).
12.
Brown, 2008: 718. The quotation within the quotation is from Brown, 1994: 1457.
13.
Field, 1964: 117.
14.
Taylor, 2020: 72–79.
15.
Stec, 2004: 160.
16.
Brown, 2008: 726–27.
17.
‘[T]he dating of Pesiqta Rabbati is one of the most controversial questions and the dating of Pesiqta Rabbati in its entirety may be a misdirected question, since the homiletic text grew by accretion whereby textual units were interwoven into the preexisting Pesiqta Rabbati material’ (Ulmer, 2017: 30). ‘One may add that the passages in question are apocalyptic and eschatological; e. g., counting in multiples of the number seven is a typical apocalyptic feature. Dating the glosses, in particular the gloss indicating the earlier date for the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, requires one to rely upon religious, cultural phenomena that may point to the mode of apocalypticism in rabbinic and para-rabbinic literature in the 6th/7th century. Indeed, Bernard Bamberger, dated a block of Pesiqta Rabbati homilies to the period of 632–637 C.E.; these passages, Pesiqta Rabbati 34–37, mention a war between Persia and Arabia (Pesiqta Rabbati 36:8). By identifying passages in Pesiqta Rabbati that ostensibly relate to historical events and personalities, the mention of “the Mourners for Zion” (Pesiqta Rabbati 34) led to speculation concerning the dating of Pesiqta Rabbati by attempting to relate this reference to a group with the same name in the ninth century, which has been dismissed or disputed’ (Ulmer, 2017: 32–33).
18.
Ulmer, 2017: 29.
19.
Fishbane holds the opposite opinion (Brown, 2008: 727 and Fishbane, 1998: 69).
20.
Ulmer, 2022: 368–69.
22.
Ulmer, 2022: 370–71.
23.
Ulmer, 2022: 370–71.
24.
The eschatological dialogue continues, even with the Patriarchs taken as a whole, who address Ephraim in the following terms (PR 37.2): ‘Ephraim, our true Messiah, even though we are your fathers, you are greater than we, because you suffered [for] the sins of our children and terrible ordeals came upon you, such as did not come upon earlier [generations] or later ones. For the sake of Israel, you [experienced] anguish, derision, and mockery among the nations of the world. You sat in darkness and gloominess, and your eyes saw no light, and your skin cleaved to your bones, and your body was as dry as a piece of wood; and your eyes grew dim from fasting—your strength is dried up like a potsherd—all these [afflictions happened] on account of the iniquities of our children. It is your will [to benefit] your children through that goodness, which the Holy One will bestow on Israel? It may be because of the greatest anguish, which you did suffer on their account in prison, that your mind is displeased with them’. The response of the Messiah Ephraim follows: ‘Fathers of the world, all that I have done I have done only for your sake and for the sake of your children and for your glory and the glory of your children that they will benefit from the goodness which the Holy One will bestow upon Israel’. The section concludes with the words of the Patriarchs: ‘Ephraim, our true Messiah, may your mind be at rest, since you put to rest the mind of your Creator and our minds’ (Ulmer, 2022: 376–79).
25.
Ulmer, 2011: 121.
26.
Ulmer, 2022: 366–67.
27.
Braude, 1959: 299.
28.
This interpretation is ancient and dates back at least to the Talmudic era. ‘Talmud’s tractate Megillah locates the matrix of Psalm 22 in the mission of Esther, heroine of Purim. Verses in Psalm 22 both teach halakhot (laws) of Purim (Megillah 4a) and represent responses of Esther to certain events in the Purim story (Megillah 15b)’ (Goldberg, 1989: 74). There are many women in the OT who are considered ‘types’ of Christ. It is striking that no early Christian author made such a connection between Esther and Christ. Catherine Brown (2008: 713) is correct in saying, ‘Yet none of these associations was made. Given that several other OT women were interpreted as types of Christ, it is reasonable to look for reasons why Esther was not addressed in this way. The first reason lies with other terminology in the LXX Esther, namely, ‘crucifixion’ as the means of Haman’s death (esp. Σταυρωθήτω [7:9], ἐσταυρῶσθαι [8:12]). That language led to the association of Haman with crucifixion, a link already established by the time of Christ, and this in turn led to the association of Jesus with Haman in Jewish celebration of Purim. In the words of Eliot Horowitz, an ‘anti-Christian animus often characterized Purim from late antiquity. By the fifth century C.E., the celebration of Purim could include enacting Haman’s execution not as a hanging but on a cross, thus making Haman, the archenemy of the Jews, into a type of Jesus. This dramatized a Jewish anti-Christian typological reading of Esther, referred to in the Theodosion Code’s Purim law of 408. The prominence of anti-Christian typology in Purim may have been the initial cause for the Christian failure to interpret the heroine of Purim as a type of Christ. It is also worth noting that those passages most conducive to interpreting Esther as a type of Christ are absent from the Hebrew version of the biblical book defined in the Christian era by the Jews as canonical.’ With this in mind, it reinforces the need for the dialogical relationship between the understanding of Ps. 22 in the NT and in Midrash Tehillim to use one of the resources of hybridization that imply an opposition between the points of view involved (in this case that of the ‘hidden polemic’). See also Brown, 2008: 720.
29.
Ps. 22.28–29: ‘Let all the ends of the earth draw near to the Lord, and let all peoples worship before You! For the kingdom [is] for the Lord. And [it is] he who rules over the peoples.’
30.
Braude, 1959: 325.
31.
Menn, 2000: 337.
32.
‘For Bakhtin, literary texts mediate the essential relationships of individuals across time, to each other, and to the divine. Dialogic texts set out multiple perspectives by depicting self-reflection, introducing multiple voices, and alluding implicitly or explicitly to other texts. Readers entertain multiple interpretations simultaneously and become co-authors by bringing to bear their knowledge of similar texts, related texts, and commentaries as well as refracting their readings through their own experiences’ (Charney, 2013: 34, n. 2). ‘Drawing on Mikhail Bakhtin’s notions of dialogism and confessional self-accounting, Patricia Tull describes how sensitive individuals across the centuries co-articulate/co-author the psalms in their own reading, writing, and praying. An aestheticizing effect can be achieved because the psalms provide access to the moment-by-moment play of thoughts and feelings of a troubled individual moving from an isolated internal struggle with his or her misdeeds to an external encounter with the divine’ (Charney, 2013: 34). See also Tull, 2005.
33.
See Pérez-Gondar (2019, 2020, 2022a and ).