Argument map

From Psalms, Layer by Layer
Jump to: navigation, search

What is an argument map?

An Argument map is a visual representation of the logical structure of an argument. The elements of an argument (propositions and relations) are represented by coloured boxes and arrows arranged on a 2D surface.


[Conclusion]
 + [Support]
 - [Objection]


Argument Mapn0Conclusionn1Supportn1->n0n2Objectionn2->n0


How to read an argument map

Basics

An argument is a series of propositions whereby the truth of one proposition (the conclusion) is affirmed or denied on the basis of one or more other propositions. Arguments, therefore, consist of (1) propositions and (2) relations between propositions.

Propositions

A proposition is a statement or assertion which may be true or false. Propositions are represented by white boxes with coloured borders.


[Proposition 1]: David wrote Psalm 51. {isInMap: true}


Argument Mapn0Proposition 1David wrote Psalm 51.


Relations

In an argument, propositions are formed in relation to one another, so that one proposition (a conclusion) is affirmed or denied on the basis of other propositions. Relations between propositions may be (1) supporting, (2) refuting, or (3) undercutting.

(1) Supporting relations are represented with a green arrow. In the map below, Proposition 2 supports (provides a reason for affirming the truth of) Proposition 1.


[Proposition 1]: David wrote Psalm 51.
 + [Proposition 2]: Psalm 51 is titled, "a psalm of David."


Argument Mapn0Proposition 1David wrote Psalm 51.n1Proposition 2Psalm 51 is titled, "a psalm of David."n1->n0


(2) Refuting relations are represented with a red arrow. In the map below, Proposition 3 refutes (provides a reason for denying the truth of) Proposition 1.


[Proposition 1]: David wrote Psalm 51.
 + [Proposition 2]: Psalm 51 is titled, "a psalm of David."
 - [Proposition 3]: Psalm 51 was written after David's time.


Argument Mapn0Proposition 1David wrote Psalm 51.n1Proposition 2Psalm 51 is titled, "a psalm of David."n1->n0n2Proposition 3Psalm 51 was written after David's time.n2->n0


(3) Undercutting relations are represented with a purple arrow. In the map below, Proposition 4 does not deny the truth of Proposition 2. Instead, it undercuts Proposition 2, so that it no longer supports Proposition 1.


[Proposition 1]: David wrote Psalm 51.
 + [Proposition 2]: Psalm 51 is titled, "a psalm of David."
   <_ [Proposition 4]: The meaning of the phrase "of David" is unclear.
 - [Proposition 3]: Psalm 51 was written after David's time.


Argument Mapn0Proposition 1David wrote Psalm 51.n1Proposition 2Psalm 51 is titled, "a psalm of David."n1->n0n2Proposition 4The meaning of the phrase "of David" is unclear.n2->n1n3Proposition 3Psalm 51 was written after David's time.n3->n0


Arguments

When two or more propositions combine to support a conclusion (a + b --> c), these supporting propositions may be represented in a single coloured box. In the map below, "Argument 1" has two propositions within it. Individually, neither of these propositions supports the conclusion that "David wrote Psalm 51." Together, however, they do provide support.


[Proposition 1]: David wrote Psalm 51.
 + [Proposition 2]: Psalm 51 is titled, "a psalm of David."
   <_ [Proposition 4]: The meaning of the phrase "of David" is unclear.
 - [Proposition 3]: Psalm 51 was written after David's time.
 + <Argument 1>: The title of Psalm 51 ("a prayer of David") is analogous to the title of Habakkuk's poem ("a prayer of Habakkuk" Hab. 3:1). In Habakkuk 3:1 authorship is clearly intended. 


Argument Mapn0Proposition 1David wrote Psalm 51.n1Proposition 2Psalm 51 is titled, "a psalm of David."n1->n0n2Proposition 4The meaning of the phrase "of David" is unclear.n2->n1n3Proposition 3Psalm 51 was written after David's time.n3->n0n4Argument 1The title of Psalm 51 ("a prayer of David") is analogous to the title of Habakkuk's poem ("a prayer of Habakkuk" Hab. 3:1). In Habakkuk 3:1 authorship is clearly intended. n4->n0


Advanced

Arguments, and thus argument maps, can become quite complex. The issue of David's writing certain psalms is a case in point. The following map explores the issue of the meaning of the phrase Ledavid ("of David") found in the psalm titles. The view of Davidic authorship is taken as a hypothesis, and the arguments for and against that view are presented.


===
model:
    removeTagsFromText: true
    shortcodes:
      ":C:": {unicode: "๐Ÿ„ฒ"}
      ":G:": {unicode: "๐Ÿ„ถ"}
      ":A:": {unicode: "๐Ÿ„ฐ"}
      ":I:": {unicode: "๐Ÿ„ธ"}    
      ":L:": {unicode: "๐Ÿ„ป"}
      ":D:": {unicode: "๐Ÿ„ณ"}    
selection:
    excludeDisconnected: false
===

# Linguistic/Literary Issues

["By David"]: The ืœ in ืœื“ื•ื“ indicates authorship: "the following text is written by y" (Jenni 2000:2169 :G:). #author

<Most likely grammatical option>: The use of ืœ in ืœื“ื•ื“ to attribute personal possession / authorship (belonging to David = written by David) is the most likely grammatical possibility. #author

(1) [Grammatical possibility]: It is grammatically possible for the ืœ in ืœื“ื•ื“ to indicate authorship. #author
(2) [Best explanation]: The ืœ in ืœื“ื•ื“ most likely indicates authorship. #author
 -> <Preposition ambiguous>
----
(3) ["By David"]

<Preposition ambiguous>: "Because the meaning of the preposition is ambiguous, it is not possible to identify specific psalms with David as author" (Limburg 1992 :D:) #noauthor
 -> ["By David"]

<Posession - Authorship>: The ืœ in ืœื“ื•ื“ is possessive (BDB :L:, DCH :L:), similar to the genitive or construct phrase (HALOT :L:, GKC 129bc :G:, BHRG 25.3.2 :G:). 
And in a possessive/genitive relationship (x of y), where x = text and y = person, y may be the author of x. #author

(1) [ืœ as possessive]: "In order to express a possessive relationship between nouns which differ in definiteness, a construction with the preposition ืœ is used instead of the construct phrase" (BHRG 25.3.2; :G: cf. GKC 129bc :G:). #author
  + e.g., 1 Sam. 16:18 ื‘ืŸ ืœื™ืฉื™ a son of Jesseโ€ฆ (GKC 129b :G:); ืึนื”ึตื‘ ืœึฐื“ึธื•ึดื“ a friend of David 1K 5:15 ืขึฒื‘ึธื“ึดื™ื ืœึฐืฉึดืืžึฐืขึดื™ slaves of Shimei 2:39, thus also ืžึดื–ึฐืžึนืจ ืœึฐืึธืกึธืฃ Ps 75:1 76:1, also ืžึดืณ ืœึฐื“ึธื•ึดื“ 3:1 (HALOT :L:) #author
(2) [Possession > Authorship]: A possessive relationship, whether a construct chain or a ืœ prepositional phrase, may indicate authorship. #author {isInMap: true}
 + [With lamed]: ืžื›ืชื‘ ืœื—ื–ืงื™ื”ื• (Isa. 38:9); ืชืคืœื” ืœื—ื‘ืงื•ืง (Hab. 3:1). #author
 + [In construct]: ื—ื–ื•ืŸ ื™ืฉืขื™ื”ื• (Isa. 1:1); ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื™ืจืžื™ื”ื• (Jer. 1:1); ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืขืžื•ืก (Amos 1:1); ืžืฉืœื™ ืฉืœืžื” (Prov. 1:1); ืกืคืจ ืžืฉื” (Neh. 13:1; 2 Chron. 25:4). #author
 ----
(3) It is grammatically possible for the ืœ in ืœื“ื•ื“ to indicate authorship. 
 +> [Grammatical possibility]

<Analogous usage>: ืœ + personal name is used in song titles in Isa. 38:9 ("of Hezekiah") and Habakkuk 3:1 ("of Habakkuk") to indicate authorship, and these song titles resemble those found in the psalms. #author

(1) The song titles in Isa. 38:9 and Habakkuk 3:1 are similar to those in the book of psalms. #author
 + [Isa 38:9]: ืžึดื›ึฐืชึธึผึ–ื‘ ืœึฐื—ึดื–ึฐืงึดื™ึธึผึฃื”ื•ึผ ืžึถึฝืœึถืšึฐึพื™ึฐื”ื•ึผื“ึธึ‘ื” ื‘ึทึผื—ึฒืœึนืชึ•ื•ึน ื•ึทื™ึฐื—ึดึ–ื™ ืžึตื—ึธืœึฐื™ึฝื•ึน #author
 + [Hab 3:1]: ืชึฐึผืคึดืœึธึผึ–ื” ืœึทื—ึฒื‘ึทืงึผึฃื•ึผืง ื”ึทื ึธึผื‘ึดึ‘ื™ื ืขึทึ–ืœ ืฉึดืื’ึฐื™ึนื ึฝื•ึนืช #author
(2) In these titles, the ืœ + personal name clearly indicates authorship #author
---- 
(3) [Best explanation]

<Semitic parallels>: "The introduction of the author, poet, etc. by this *Lamed auctoris* is the customary idiom also in the other Semitic dialects, especially in Arabic" (GKC 129c :G:). #author
 +> [Grammatical possibility]

<Pss 7:1; 18:1>: In the superscriptions of Psalm 7 and Psalm 18, ืœื“ื•ื“ is followed by the words, "which he sang/spoke..." The relative clause indicates David as the author. #author
 + [Ps 18:1]: ืœึทืžึฐื ึทืฆึตึผึคื—ึทื€ ืœึฐืขึถึฅื‘ึถื“ ื™ึฐื”ื•ึธึ—ื” ืœึฐื“ึธึซื•ึดึฅื“ ืึฒืฉึถืึคืจ ื“ึดึผื‘ึถึผึจืจื€ ืœึทื™ื”ื•ึธึ—ื” ืึถืชึพื“ึดึผึญื‘ึฐืจึตื™ ื”ึทืฉึดึผืื™ืจึธึฃื” ื”ึทื–ึนึผึ‘ืืช #author
 + [Ps 7:1]: ืฉึดืื’ึธึผื™ึ—ื•ึนืŸ ืœึฐื“ึธึซื•ึดึฅื“ ืึฒืฉึถืืจึพืฉึธืึฅืจ ืœึทื™ื”ื•ึธึ‘ื” #author
 +> [Best explanation]

 <Ps 72:20>: Psalm 72:20 refers to the preceding material, mostly ืœื“ื•ื“ psalms, as "David's prayers" (ืชึฐืคึดืœึผึ‘ื•ึนืช ื“ึธึผึื•ึดึ—ื“). #author
 +> [Best explanation]

<Historical superscriptions>: "In the headings of Psalms 3; 7; 18; 34; 51; 52; 54; 57; 59; 60; 63; and 142 the connection between ืœื“ื•ื“ and the description of the situation that follows immediately is so close that it is impossible to construe the ืœ in ืœื“ื•ื“ as anything else than the ืœ auctoris" (Kraus 1988:22 :C:). #author

(1) "The contents of some of the titles, e.g., 3, 7, 18, 30, 34, 51, 52, 54, 56, 57, 59, 60, 63, 142, refer to some event in Davidโ€™s life,
(2) and here the phrase *ledhavidh* is clearly intended to indicate authorship by David. 
----
(3) If that is the case here, it would seem also to be the case with the other occurrences of the phrase" (Young 1960:314 :I:).
 +> [Best explanation]

## Historical Issues

<Tradition>: David was an author of psalms. #author
 +> [Best explanation] 

[OT tradition]: "In various places of the OT the old tradition persists that David is the author of individual psalms" (Kraus 1988:23 :C:). #author
 + 1 Sam. 16:17ff.; 2 Sam. 1:17ff.; 22:1f; 23:1f.; Amos 6:5 #author
 +> <Tradition>

[Early Jewish tradition]: "The same persuasion regarding Davidic authorship persists in... the early Jewish tradition" (Waltke 1982:10-12 :A:). #author
  + Ben Sirach (c. 190 BC): "In all that he (David) did he gave thanks to the Holy One, the Most High, with ascription of glory; he sang praise with all his heart, and he loved his makerโ€ (Eccl. 47:8-9). #author
  + 11QPs a (c. AD 30 - c. AD 50): "David wrote 3600 psalms." #author
  + Josephus, Antiquities VII (AD 93): "David being freed from wars and dangers, and enjoying for the future a profound peace, composed songs and hymns to God of several sorts of metre." #author
  + Baraitha Baba Bathra (c. AD 450 - c. AD 550): "David wrote the book of Psalms by means of ten Ancients, Adam, the first, Melchisedech, Abraham, Moses, Heman, Iduthun, Asaph and the three sons of Kore." #author
  +> <Tradition>

[NT tradition]: "The same persuasion regarding Davidic authorship persists in... the New Testament" (Waltke 1982:10-12 :A:). #author
 + "The New Testament cites David as the author of Psalms 2, 16, 32, 69, 109, 110" (Waltke 1982:10-12 :A:). #author
   - [Convenational speech]: This is just a conventional way of speaking (e.g., mustard seed as smallest seed); Davidic authorship is never essential to the argument of a NT writer (Goldingay 2006 :C:). #noauthor
    - "The Davidic authorship of 110 is basic and essential to the argument of Jesus himself in Mark 12:36-40" (Grogan 2008 :C:). #author
    - "In Acts 2:25-36 Peterโ€™s argument from Psalm 16, which he links with 110, also depends on Davidic authorship (cf. Acts 13:35-37)" (Grogan 2008 :C:). #author
    - "In Rom 4:6-8 Paul quotes Ps 32:1-2 as from David" (Grogan 2008 :C:). #author
 +> <Tradition>

[Hist. SS's as interpretive additions]: "The Psalm titles do not appear to reflect independent historical tradition but are the result of an exegetical activity which derived its material from within the text itself" (Childs 1971 :A:). #noauthor
  + <Linguistic connections>: "The (historical) superscriptions as a whole contain far more linguistic connections to the narratives (of 1-2 Sam) than appear in the psalms" (Nogalski 2001 :A:). #noauthor 
  - <Orphan psalms>: There are many psalms with no title. If there was a tendency to add titles at a later time, why do we have orphan psalms? (Hengstenberg 3:xxii-xxxi :C:). #author
  - [Unique historical information]: The historical information of some titles is not found in historical books and not readily inferred from the psalm itself (Young 1960 :I:). #author
   + Pss. 7:1; 30:1; 60:1-2 #author
  _> <Historical superscriptions>

<Mismatch>: "At times the situation reflected in Davidic psalms does not match Davidโ€™s situation described in 1โ€“2 Samuel" (Broyles 1999:33-36 :C:). #noauthor 

(1) "At times the situation reflected in Davidic psalms does not match Davidโ€™s situation described in 1โ€“ 2 Samuel" (Broyles 1999:33-36 :C:).
 +> [Unique historical information]<!--
 + <Ps 59>: "The scope of Psalm 59 is international: God is to โ€œpunish all the nationsโ€ (v. 5) and the demise of the speakerโ€™s foes will make โ€œknown to the ends of the earth that God rules over Jacobโ€ (v. 13). But the citation of 1 Samuel 19:11 contained in the psalmโ€™s superscription merely points to internal political intrigue" (Broyles 1999:33-36). #noauthor
 + <Ps 63>: "The superscription to Psalm 63 points to the period when David was โ€œin the desert of Judahโ€ fleeing from Saul (1 Sam. 23โ€“26). But the speakerโ€™s claim or petition in verse 11 of the psalm that โ€œthe king will rejoice in Godโ€ seems inappropriate to King Saul" (Broyles 1999:33-36). #noauthor
 + <Ps 51>: "Since the conclusion (of Ps. 51) contains a prayer for rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem (vv. 18-19), the psalm in its present form must come from a time much later than David" (Anderson 2000:17). #noauthor -->
(2) The situation reflected in the Davidic psalms must match David's situation described in the biblical narrative. #noauthor 
----
(3) [Hist. SS's as interpretive additions]

<LXX expansion>: "The additions and deviations in the historical notices of the LXX... show how common it was for the collectors to adopt different traditions, or perhaps to follow mere conjecture (Perowne 1878:102 :C:). #noauthor

(1) The LXX expands the number of superscriptions "of David" and supplies historical settings
 - โ€œThough the divergence in text between LXX and MT may well be greater in the superscriptions than it is in the rest of the Psalter, the discrepancy is not as great as Rahlfs would have us believeโ€ (Pietersma 1980:224 :A:). #author
(2) There is no evidence of an independent historical tradition to the LXX additions (Childs 1971).
----
(3) There was a tendency in the Second Temple Period to connect psalms to events in David's life based on exegesis and not on historical tradition.
----
(4) [Hist. SS's as interpretive additions]

<Authorship>: The ืœ in ืœื“ื•ื“ cannot indicate authorship, because David could not be the author of some ืœื“ื•ื“ psalms.
"If the addition of names in the psalm titles was intended... to imply authorship, then it must be concluded that the editorial addition was not in every case accurate" (Craigie 1983:35 :C:) #noauthor

(1) [Non-Davidic authorship]: David could not be the author of some ืœื“ื•ื“ psalms. #noauthor
---- 
(2) The ืœ in ืœื“ื•ื“ cannot indicate authorship.
 -> ["By David"]

<Temple anachronism>: Because some ืœื“ื•ื“ psalms make reference to the temple, which did not exist in David's day, David could not have written these psalms. #noauthor

(1) Some ืœื“ื•ื“ psalms make reference to the temple. #noauthor
 + Pss. 5:8; 11:4; 18:7; 23:6; 27:4; 28; 29:9; 30:1; 36:9; 52:10; 55:15; 65:5; 66:13; 68:30; 69:10; 122; 138:2 #noauthor
 - "The place of worship which in Ps. 27:4 is called ื‘ื™ืช ื™ื”ื•ื” and ื”ื™ื›ืœ in v. 5 receives the designation ืกื›ื” and ืื”ืœ, descriptions which were never applied to the Temple of Solomon" (Young 1960:320 :I:). #author
(2) The temple did not exist in David's day. #author
 - The "house/temple of YHWH" (ื‘ื™ืช ื™ื”ื•ื” / ื”ื™ื›ืœ ื™ื”ื•ื”) refers to the institution rather than the building (Gentry). #author
  + Both โ€œhouse of YHWHโ€ (1 Sam 1:7; 3:15) and โ€œtempleโ€ (1 Sam 1:9; 3:3) are used in the narrative of Hannah when there was no temple either (Gentry). #author
 - David's "psalms could well have originated in his personal experience and then have their language updated by him for use in the temple" (Grogan 2008). #author
  + David, knowing that his son would build a temple, made material and liturgical preparation for its construction. #author
   + 2 Sam. 7; 1 Chron 16-17. #author
  + The cultic language of the psalms could be modified to fit historical circumstances. #author
   + The quotation of Psa 96 in 1 Chron 16 changes ืžืงื“ืฉ (Ps 96:9) to ืžืงื•ื (1 Chron 16:27) and ื—ืฆืจื•ืช (Ps 96:8) to ืœืคื ื™ื• (1 Chron 16:29). #author
-----
(3) [Non-Davidic authorship]

<Aramaisms>: Because some ืœื“ื•ื“ psalms have Aramaisms, which David would not have used, David could not have written these psalms. #noauthor

(1) Some ืœื“ื•ื“ psalms have Aramaisms.
(2) David did not use Aramaisms.
 - The same mixture of Hebrew and Aramaic in Psalm 139, attributed to David, is also displayed in the Panammu and Zenjirli inscriptions of the 9th century BC (see Max Wagner 1966) (Gentry). #author
----
(3) [Non-Davidic authorship]
<!--
<2nd and 3rd person references to the king>: Because some ืœื“ื•ื“ psalms refer to the king in the 3rd person and/or address him in the 2nd person, King David could not have written these psalms. #noauthor
 + Pss. 18:51; 20; 21; 61:7-8; 63:12; 72; 110 #noauthor
 +> [Non-Davidic authorship]



["For David"]: The ืœ in ืœื“ื•ื“ indicates that "the psalms were composed for the use of, and were in due time used by โ€˜Davidโ€™ - that is to say, in most cases, by a king of the house of David" (Mowinckel 1967:76, vol 1.)
 + "in the OT 'David' can refer to a subsequent Davidic king or to a coming David" (Goldingay 2006:25-32) #noauthor
  + Jer. 30:9; Ezek. 34:23โ€“ 24; 37:24โ€“ 25; Hosea 3:5 #noauthor

["Belong to the Davidic Collection"]: The ืœ in ืœื“ื•ื“ indicates that the psalm previously belonged to a "Davidic" collection of psalms.

-->


Argument Mapcluster_1Linguistic/Literary Issuescluster_2Historical Issuesn0"By David"The ืœ in ืœื“ื•ื“ indicates authorship: "the following text is written by y" (Jenni 2000:2169 ๐Ÿ„ถ). n1Grammatical possibilityIt is grammatically possible for the ืœ in ืœื“ื•ื“ to indicate authorship. n40Most likely grammatical optionThe use of ืœ in ืœื“ื•ื“ to attribute personal possession / authorship (belonging to David = written by David) is the most likely grammatical possibility. n1->n40n2Best explanationThe ืœ in ืœื“ื•ื“ most likely indicates authorship. n2->n40n41Preposition ambiguous"Because the meaning of the preposition is ambiguous, it is not possible to identify specific psalms with David as author" (Limburg 1992 ๐Ÿ„ณ) n2->n41n3ืœ as possessive"In order to express a possessive relationship between nouns which differ in definiteness, a construction with the preposition ืœ is used instead of the construct phrase" (BHRG 25.3.2; ๐Ÿ„ถ cf. GKC 129bc ๐Ÿ„ถ). n42Posession - AuthorshipThe ืœ in ืœื“ื•ื“ is possessive (BDB ๐Ÿ„ป, DCH ๐Ÿ„ป), similar to the genitive or construct phrase (HALOT ๐Ÿ„ป, GKC 129bc ๐Ÿ„ถ, BHRG 25.3.2 ๐Ÿ„ถ). And in a possessive/genitive relationship (x of y), where x = text and y = person, y may be the author of x. n3->n42n4e.g., 1 Sam. 16:18 ื‘ืŸ ืœื™ืฉื™ a son of Jesseโ€ฆ (GKC 129b ๐Ÿ„ถ); ืึนื”ึตื‘ ืœึฐื“ึธื•ึดื“ a friend of David 1K 5:15 ืขึฒื‘ึธื“ึดื™ื ืœึฐืฉึดืืžึฐืขึดื™ slaves of Shimei 2:39, thus also ืžึดื–ึฐืžึนืจ ืœึฐืึธืกึธืฃ Ps 75:1 76:1, also ืžึดืณ ืœึฐื“ึธื•ึดื“ 3:1 (HALOT ๐Ÿ„ป) n4->n3n5Possession > AuthorshipA possessive relationship, whether a construct chain or a ืœ prepositional phrase, may indicate authorship. n5->n42n6With lamedืžื›ืชื‘ ืœื—ื–ืงื™ื”ื• (Isa. 38:9); ืชืคืœื” ืœื—ื‘ืงื•ืง (Hab. 3:1). n6->n5n7In constructื—ื–ื•ืŸ ื™ืฉืขื™ื”ื• (Isa. 1:1); ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื™ืจืžื™ื”ื• (Jer. 1:1); ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืขืžื•ืก (Amos 1:1); ืžืฉืœื™ ืฉืœืžื” (Prov. 1:1); ืกืคืจ ืžืฉื” (Neh. 13:1; 2 Chron. 25:4). n7->n5n8Isa 38:9ืžึดื›ึฐืชึธึผึ–ื‘ ืœึฐื—ึดื–ึฐืงึดื™ึธึผึฃื”ื•ึผ ืžึถึฝืœึถืšึฐึพื™ึฐื”ื•ึผื“ึธึ‘ื” ื‘ึทึผื—ึฒืœึนืชึ•ื•ึน ื•ึทื™ึฐื—ึดึ–ื™ ืžึตื—ึธืœึฐื™ึฝื•ึน n43Analogous usageืœ + personal name is used in song titles in Isa. 38:9 ("of Hezekiah") and Habakkuk 3:1 ("of Habakkuk") to indicate authorship, and these song titles resemble those found in the psalms. n8->n43n9Hab 3:1ืชึฐึผืคึดืœึธึผึ–ื” ืœึทื—ึฒื‘ึทืงึผึฃื•ึผืง ื”ึทื ึธึผื‘ึดึ‘ื™ื ืขึทึ–ืœ ืฉึดืื’ึฐื™ึนื ึฝื•ึนืช n9->n43n10Ps 18:1ืœึทืžึฐื ึทืฆึตึผึคื—ึทื€ ืœึฐืขึถึฅื‘ึถื“ ื™ึฐื”ื•ึธึ—ื” ืœึฐื“ึธึซื•ึดึฅื“ ืึฒืฉึถืึคืจ ื“ึดึผื‘ึถึผึจืจื€ ืœึทื™ื”ื•ึธึ—ื” ืึถืชึพื“ึดึผึญื‘ึฐืจึตื™ ื”ึทืฉึดึผืื™ืจึธึฃื” ื”ึทื–ึนึผึ‘ืืช n45Pss 7:1; 18:1In the superscriptions of Psalm 7 and Psalm 18, ืœื“ื•ื“ is followed by the words, "which he sang/spoke..." The relative clause indicates David as the author. n10->n45n11Ps 7:1ืฉึดืื’ึธึผื™ึ—ื•ึนืŸ ืœึฐื“ึธึซื•ึดึฅื“ ืึฒืฉึถืืจึพืฉึธืึฅืจ ืœึทื™ื”ื•ึธึ‘ื” n11->n45n40->n0n41->n0n42->n1n43->n2n44Semitic parallels"The introduction of the author, poet, etc. by this Lamed auctoris  is the customary idiom also in the other Semitic dialects, especially in Arabic" (GKC 129c ๐Ÿ„ถ). n44->n1n45->n2n46Ps 72:20Psalm 72:20 refers to the preceding material, mostly ืœื“ื•ื“ psalms, as "David's prayers" (ืชึฐืคึดืœึผึ‘ื•ึนืช ื“ึธึผึื•ึดึ—ื“). n46->n2n47Historical superscriptions"In the headings of Psalms 3; 7; 18; 34; 51; 52; 54; 57; 59; 60; 63; and 142 the connection between ืœื“ื•ื“ and the description of the situation that follows immediately is so close that it is impossible to construe the ืœ in ืœื“ื•ื“ as anything else than the ืœ auctoris" (Kraus 1988:22 ๐Ÿ„ฒ). n47->n2n12OT tradition"In various places of the OT the old tradition persists that David is the author of individual psalms" (Kraus 1988:23 ๐Ÿ„ฒ). n48TraditionDavid was an author of psalms. n12->n48n131 Sam. 16:17ff.; 2 Sam. 1:17ff.; 22:1f; 23:1f.; Amos 6:5 n13->n12n14Early Jewish tradition"The same persuasion regarding Davidic authorship persists in... the early Jewish tradition" (Waltke 1982:10-12 ๐Ÿ„ฐ). n14->n48n15Ben Sirach (c. 190 BC): "In all that he (David) did he gave thanks to the Holy One, the Most High, with ascription of glory; he sang praise with all his heart, and he loved his makerโ€ (Eccl. 47:8-9). n15->n14n1611QPs a (c. AD 30 - c. AD 50): "David wrote 3600 psalms." n16->n14n17Josephus, Antiquities VII (AD 93): "David being freed from wars and dangers, and enjoying for the future a profound peace, composed songs and hymns to God of several sorts of metre." n17->n14n18Baraitha Baba Bathra (c. AD 450 - c. AD 550): "David wrote the book of Psalms by means of ten Ancients, Adam, the first, Melchisedech, Abraham, Moses, Heman, Iduthun, Asaph and the three sons of Kore." n18->n14n19NT tradition"The same persuasion regarding Davidic authorship persists in... the New Testament" (Waltke 1982:10-12 ๐Ÿ„ฐ). n19->n48n20"The New Testament cites David as the author of Psalms 2, 16, 32, 69, 109, 110" (Waltke 1982:10-12 ๐Ÿ„ฐ). n20->n19n21Convenational speechThis is just a conventional way of speaking (e.g., mustard seed as smallest seed); Davidic authorship is never essential to the argument of a NT writer (Goldingay 2006 ๐Ÿ„ฒ). n21->n20n22"The Davidic authorship of 110 is basic and essential to the argument of Jesus himself in Mark 12:36-40" (Grogan 2008 ๐Ÿ„ฒ). n22->n21n23"In Acts 2:25-36 Peterโ€™s argument from Psalm 16, which he links with 110, also depends on Davidic authorship (cf. Acts 13:35-37)" (Grogan 2008 ๐Ÿ„ฒ). n23->n21n24"In Rom 4:6-8 Paul quotes Ps 32:1-2 as from David" (Grogan 2008 ๐Ÿ„ฒ). n24->n21n25Hist. SS's as interpretive additions"The Psalm titles do not appear to reflect independent historical tradition but are the result of an exegetical activity which derived its material from within the text itself" (Childs 1971 ๐Ÿ„ฐ). n25->n47n26Unique historical informationThe historical information of some titles is not found in historical books and not readily inferred from the psalm itself (Young 1960 ๐Ÿ„ธ). n26->n25n27Pss. 7:1; 30:1; 60:1-2 n27->n26n28โ€œThough the divergence in text between LXX and MT may well be greater in the superscriptions than it is in the rest of the Psalter, the discrepancy is not as great as Rahlfs would have us believeโ€ (Pietersma 1980:224 ๐Ÿ„ฐ). n52LXX expansion"The additions and deviations in the historical notices of the LXX... show how common it was for the collectors to adopt different traditions, or perhaps to follow mere conjecture (Perowne 1878:102 ๐Ÿ„ฒ). n28->n52n29Non-Davidic authorshipDavid could not be the author of some ืœื“ื•ื“ psalms. n53AuthorshipThe ืœ in ืœื“ื•ื“ cannot indicate authorship, because David could not be the author of some ืœื“ื•ื“ psalms. "If the addition of names in the psalm titles was intended... to imply authorship, then it must be concluded that the editorial addition was not in every case accurate" (Craigie 1983:35 ๐Ÿ„ฒ) n29->n53n30Pss. 5:8; 11:4; 18:7; 23:6; 27:4; 28; 29:9; 30:1; 36:9; 52:10; 55:15; 65:5; 66:13; 68:30; 69:10; 122; 138:2 n54Temple anachronismBecause some ืœื“ื•ื“ psalms make reference to the temple, which did not exist in David's day, David could not have written these psalms. n30->n54n31"The place of worship which in Ps. 27:4 is called ื‘ื™ืช ื™ื”ื•ื” and ื”ื™ื›ืœ in v. 5 receives the designation ืกื›ื” and ืื”ืœ, descriptions which were never applied to the Temple of Solomon" (Young 1960:320 ๐Ÿ„ธ). n31->n54n32The "house/temple of YHWH" (ื‘ื™ืช ื™ื”ื•ื” / ื”ื™ื›ืœ ื™ื”ื•ื”) refers to the institution rather than the building (Gentry). n32->n54n33Both โ€œhouse of YHWHโ€ (1 Sam 1:7; 3:15) and โ€œtempleโ€ (1 Sam 1:9; 3:3) are used in the narrative of Hannah when there was no temple either (Gentry). n33->n32n34David's "psalms could well have originated in his personal experience and then have their language updated by him for use in the temple" (Grogan 2008). n34->n54n35David, knowing that his son would build a temple, made material and liturgical preparation for its construction. n35->n34n362 Sam. 7; 1 Chron 16-17. n36->n35n37The cultic language of the psalms could be modified to fit historical circumstances. n37->n34n38The quotation of Psa 96 in 1 Chron 16 changes ืžืงื“ืฉ (Ps 96:9) to ืžืงื•ื (1 Chron 16:27) and ื—ืฆืจื•ืช (Ps 96:8) to ืœืคื ื™ื• (1 Chron 16:29). n38->n37n39The same mixture of Hebrew and Aramaic in Psalm 139, attributed to David, is also displayed in the Panammu and Zenjirli inscriptions of the 9th century BC (see Max Wagner 1966) (Gentry). n55AramaismsBecause some ืœื“ื•ื“ psalms have Aramaisms, which David would not have used, David could not have written these psalms. n39->n55n48->n2n49Linguistic connections"The (historical) superscriptions as a whole contain far more linguistic connections to the narratives (of 1-2 Sam) than appear in the psalms" (Nogalski 2001 ๐Ÿ„ฐ). n49->n25n50Orphan psalmsThere are many psalms with no title. If there was a tendency to add titles at a later time, why do we have orphan psalms? (Hengstenberg 3:xxii-xxxi ๐Ÿ„ฒ). n50->n25n51Mismatch"At times the situation reflected in Davidic psalms does not match Davidโ€™s situation described in 1โ€“2 Samuel" (Broyles 1999:33-36 ๐Ÿ„ฒ). n51->n25n52->n25n53->n0n54->n29n55->n29


Approaches to reading

Top-down. When reading maps such as this one, it may be helpful to start at the top. The highest proposition will be the thesis of the argument. From the top, you can work your way down, following the arrows and tracing the argument one step at a time.

Bottom-up. One may instead choose to read the map from the bottom-up. The lowest parts of the map usually present the objective evidence on which all of the arguments build. Starting from the bottom allows you to see all of the evidence up front and to see how arguments are built (or not built) on that evidence.

Other symbols

The map above employs some visual features that have not yet been explained.

Sections. The grey boxes in the background group parts of the map into sections. Oftentimes, an interpretive issue breaks down into multiple sub-issues. These might be represented as distinct sections. In this case, it is helpful to distinguish between the linguistic issue of the meaning of the phrase ledavid and of the historical issue of Davidic authorship.

Different colours. Different colours may be used to show the different sides of an argument. In this map, arguments and propositions are either orange or purple. Orange propositions and arguments are those which support the hypothesis of Davidic authorship. Purple propositions and arguments are opposed to it.

Symbols. Certain symbols (e.g., ๐Ÿ„ฒ) follow after secondary source references. These symbols indicate types of secondary sources.

  • A = article
  • C = commentary
  • D = dictionary
  • G = grammatical resource
  • I = OT introduction
  • L = lexical resource
  • M = monograph

Why use argument maps?

The aim of this project is to equip interpreters (translators in particular) to make informed decisions about the Psalms. Argument maps are ideally suited to this aim, because they encourage scholarly rigour, transparency, and accessibility.


[Equipping interpreters]: Argument maps are well suited to the aim of equipping interpreters to making informed decisions about the Psalms.
 + <Rigour>: Controversial interpretive decisions should be engaged in conversation with the best of scholarship and supported by the strongest possible arguments. Argument mapping encourages this kind of rigour.
 + <Transparency>: The step-by-step display of an argument allows interpreters to evaluate our work with clarity, see what other scholars have said on a given issue, and come to their own conclusions.
 + <Accessibility>: Interpreters should be able to access the best of scholarship without having to locate resources and trudge through academic prose. A single argument map can summarise hundreds of pages of scholarship in an easy-to-read visual way.


Argument Mapn0Equipping interpretersArgument maps are well suited to the aim of equipping interpreters to making informed decisions about the Psalms.n1RigourControversial interpretive decisions should be engaged in conversation with the best of scholarship and supported by the strongest possible arguments. Argument mapping encourages this kind of rigour.n1->n0n2TransparencyThe step-by-step display of an argument allows interpreters to evaluate our work with clarity, see what other scholars have said on a given issue, and come to their own conclusions.n2->n0n3AccessibilityInterpreters should be able to access the best of scholarship without having to locate resources and trudge through academic prose. A single argument map can summarise hundreds of pages of scholarship in an easy-to-read visual way.n3->n0