Psalm 95: Text, Context, and Intertext

Those who read the Psalter are often struck by the power of its pietistic language: the agony of the psalmist as he utters a complaint; the sheer joy of another psalmist as he proclaims praise. The theological themes and their poetic expression have drawn readers to the Psalter. Yet equally impressive is the artistic and literary sophistication of the various psalmists. Interspersed throughout many psalms are implicit and explicit references to earlier texts and traditions. These references suggest that the psalms were far more than simple prayers uttered by petitioners, but rather composite texts in which the psalmist attempted to employ older texts and traditions in an effort to speak to the present situation.

In a previous issue of Biblica, W.M. Schniedewind suggested that Ps 100 had a significant influence on certain later biblical texts, namely Ps 79, Ps 95, and Ezek 34¹. In his article, Schniedewind outlined some of the possible arguments that demonstrate the relationship between Ps 100 and the other texts. Regarding the influence of Ps 100 on Ps 95, Schniedewind contends that 'the final form of Psalm 95 is shaped by its dialogue with Psalm 100'². There are two pieces of evidence that seem to lead him to his conclusion. First he notes the similarity between 100,3 and 95,7. Although the language is 'only loosely parallel', there is an obvious relationship between the texts. Secondly, Schniedewind suggests that in Ps 95 the psalmist declares that the nation will be 'his people ... if they will obey his voice and not harden their hearts'. The use of the conditional in Ps 95 challenges the affirmations made in Ps 100. This leads Schniedewind to suggest that such an interpretation of Israel's identity 'accords well with the Deuteronomic school'³.

The purpose of this study is to develop more fully the argument first posed by Schniedewind, particularly as it relates to Ps 95. The suggestion posed by Schniedewind that the psalmist in Ps 95 incorporated elements of Psalm 100 will be explored further. While not mentioned in the article by Schniedewind, the use of the Massah / Meribah tradition in the psalm and the accompanying deuteronomic devices will be addressed.

I. Inner-biblical Exegesis 

Prior to addressing the issues related to Ps 95, the issue of methodology should be considered briefly. How does one read and understand texts that appear in some form of a relationship with other texts? In his seminal work, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, M. Fishbane has noted the complex nature of literary relationships that exist within the Hebrew Bible⁴. Drawing from rabbinical exegetical methods, Fishbane offered a framework for classifying what he considers to be inner-biblical exegesis. In a another work, Fishbane explains his approach by suggesting that 'textual exegeses in the Hebrew Bible oscillate between the authoritatively given lemma and its renovation ... the received text is complexly compacted of teachings and their subversion, of rules and their extension, of topoi and their revision'⁵. Building off the work of Fishbane, Rex Mason has indicated four possible methods of inner-biblical exegesis: 1) the appearance of glosses; 2) the way biblical material has been arranged in its present form; 3) direct quotation; and 4) the re-use of earlier scriptural themes and traditions⁶. The last three methods will be of particular interest in the study of Ps 95.

Although Fishbane's work remains the benchmark in inner-biblical exegesis, other works have levied challenges against his methodology. J. Kugel has criticized Fishbane, suggesting that he has relied too heavily on later rabbinical models in his investigation⁷. Some, such as L. Eslinger, have criticized the diachronic component of Fishbane's methodology⁸. He contends that it is problematic to make historical determinations concerning the primacy of one text over the other. As a result, Eslinger dismisses the term 'inner-biblical exegesis' in favor of 'inner-biblical allusion'. But his suggestion is much more than name only. Eslinger contends that a synchronic, intertextual reading of the Bible which 'follows the sequence of the Bible's own plot' would actually serve as a better methodology than that proposed by Fishbane⁹.

A response to Eslinger and those who espouse a synchronic approach to intertextuality has been mounted by Benjamin D. Sommer and W. M. Schniedewind¹⁰. Sommer agrees with Eslinger in that the dating of texts and the determination of the vector of influence may prove difficult. But contrary to the conclusions drawn by Eslinger, Sommer contends 'the proper response to such difficulties is not a flight to the synchronic but careful construction of an argument'¹¹. He further admits that at times the arguments may seem speculative, but this need not 'vitiate the project as a whole' ¹². Instead of abandoning the process and opting for a synchronic approach, Sommer avers that the methods of inner-biblical exegesis need to be refined to establish criteria that will assist in the determination of allusions, citations, and influence.

II. Approaching the Text(s) 

If Fishbane, Sommer, and Schniedewind are correct in that one can determine the historical process of inner-biblical exegesis, then how would this process be conceived? It would be much too simplistic only to assert that communities of faith took old texts and traditions and used them in the formation of their newer texts. The critical question is not really whether they used older texts or traditions, but rather, why they chose the texts that they did and further, what light does this shed on their interpretative processes?

The interpretative process might be sketched out as follows. The original text, or tradition, is inherited by a new community. As this community seeks to interpret this text for its own time, there are two influences that impinge upon the process: the social context and the community hermeneutic. The events in the larger social environment effect how the community hears and transmits the story. The most pressing context for those inheriting the text or tradition is no longer the original context, but their own¹³. The second influence is the community hermeneutic. This may be construed as the way in which the community understands itself and how they project that self-understanding back onto the world around them. Do they still see themselves as the people of God? Do they feel God has abandoned them? These questions and their answers would effect the way in which they hear and transmit the older material. As a new community receives the text or tradition, the material is filtered through the dual lens of the social context and the community hermeneutic. In the process, they pick up, adapt, modify, and adopt the old text, joining with it their own statements of faith, thus producing the final result — the intertext. As D. Boyarin contends, the process of intertextuality 'is, in a sense, the way that history, understood as cultural and ideological change and conflict, records itself within textuality'¹⁴. How is such 'cultural and ideological change and conflict' reflected in Ps 95? How are the older texts and traditions adapted for use in Ps 95?

Psalms 95 and 100

The most obvious connection between the two psalms appears in 95,6b-7a and 100,3.

In considering the relationship between the two psalms, Schniedewind limits his comments, stating that 'in both psalms then we have a recognition of Yahweh as the true God and Israel as his people'¹⁵. While this is not incorrect, such a statement fails to indicate the degree of interplay that exists between the two texts. There are three concepts that dominate these verses, and together they reinforce the notion that Ps 95 and Ps 100 stand in dialogue.

God is proclaimed as Maker — in 100,3 the root h#( appears in verbal form, while in 95,6, it appears in the nominative form. With the reference to 'his pasture' (wty(rm) in both psalms, God is depicted as a shepherd. And in both psalms the people are referred to as sheep (N)c). There are several texts that mention God as both the creator and shepherd (Isa 43,1, 15; Deut 32,6). In addition, Ps 79,13 and Ezek 34,31 use the same vocabulary to speak about pastures and sheep¹⁶. But Ps 95 and 100 are the only places in the Hebrew Bible where these three concepts converge, using terminology that explicitly refers to God as Maker and Shepherd, and to his people as sheep¹⁷.

In addition to these verses, there are other similarities between the two psalms that should be considered. The examples listed below alone could not justify calling the relationship between Ps 95 and Ps 100 an intertextual relationship, but taken together, especially with the evidence in 95,6b-7a and 100,3, they lend credence to the possibility. In one of his tests for intertextuality, Richard B. Hays contends that 'volume' must be considered. According to Hays, 'volume' 'is determined primarily by the degree of explicit repetition of words or syntactical patterns'¹⁸. The texts mentioned above and below suggest that there is a relatively high degree of 'explicit repetition of words or syntactical patterns'.

In 100,1, the psalmist commands, 'Make a joyful noise' ((wr) and in 95,1.2b, the psalmist echoes similar sentiments, but this time in cohortative fashion, 'Let us make a joyful noise' ((wr). In both psalms, )wb is used in the imperative (95,6; 100,2.4). In addition, both psalms contain forms of the word Nnr. In 95,1, it appears in a verbal form, while in 100,2, it appears in the nominative form. In 95,2 and 100,2, the psalmists mention 'his presence' (wynp). Further similarities are found in 95,2 and 100,4, where the term hdwt appears. Again, none of these examples alone make the case that Ps 95 stands in an intertextual relationship with Ps 100, but taken together, and in consideration of their volume, they suggest that Ps 100 may have had a definite influence on the psalmist who wrote Ps 95.

Thus far, we have considered the relationship between the texts, i.e., what exists that is similar between the texts. And as seen above, there are words and phrases from the first four verses of Ps 100 that appear in Ps 95. But perhaps equally important is what is not found in Ps 95. Other than yk and hwhy, there are no words from the last verse of Ps 100 that appear in Ps 95. In 100,5, the psalmist proclaims 

For the Lord is good,
his steadfast love endures forever,
and his faithfulness to all generations. 

Throughout Ps 95, the word 'good' (bw+) does not appear, and there is no mention of the steadfast love (dsx) of YHWH, or of his faithfulness (hnwm)). And certainly there is no mention that these qualities will carry on 'forever' or from 'generation to generation'. When Ps 95 and Ps 100 are placed side by side, one cannot help but notice a conspicuous absence of any reference to 100,5. I would contend that the psalmist intentionally omitted any reference to 100,5 due to the two influences that impinge on the intertextual process: namely the social context and the community hermeneutic. Because of the exile and the theological conundrum which it produced, the psalmist felt he could no longer make such absolute statements as the psalmist in Ps 100 once did. The community could no longer see itself as immune to the threats of foreign powers and domination simply because 'the Lord is good'. The social context of the community, and the threats present in the homeland, along with the new community hermeneutic necessitated that the psalmist move from a general call to worship to the more pressing message found in the second half of the psalm.

 Psalm 95 and Deuteronomic Influences

        Whereas the first portion of the psalm seems to have been constructed with a single text in mind, Ps 100, the second half of the psalm is less text specific¹⁹. The Meribah-Massah tradition dominates the latter section of Ps 95. But as will be noted below, the appropriation of this tradition is done so explicitly within the Deuteronomic tradition.

The distinction between the first portion of the psalm and the second has generated considerable discussion²⁰. Beginning in the second half of verse 7, the psalm abruptly changes both thematically and grammatically. The thematic changes will be addressed below. The grammatical changes, though, are clearly evident. In vv. 1, 2, 6 and 7 almost all of the verbs appear in the first person and the first person pronominal suffix appears repeatedly (vv. 1, 6 and 7). Yet, beginning in v. 7b, there is a noticeable shift to the second person, including an imperative in the first line of v. 8. These features in the psalm led Davies to conclude that vv. 1-7a are 'the words of men in the form of an extended 'Call to Worship' and vv. 7b-11, a second part, the words of God or his representative to men, in the form of an exhortation, or prophetic oracle'²¹. Similarly, Gunkel noted that this portion of the psalm 'is in content and form an imitation (Nachahmung) of prophetic speech'²².

A related issue concerning the division between the two sections pertains to the unusual location of the last word in v. 7a (wdy) and the placement of the atnah beneath it. BHS proposes moving the atnah to the last word in the previous line (N)cw) and then, appealing to haplography, recommends inserting the imperative form of (dy prior to wdy. Kraus has adopted a similar position and translated this portion of v. 7 as 'Recognize his activity today! Oh that you would listen to his voice!'²³. While such a proposal makes for an easier division of the verse, it does not seem to be a convincing solution. There is no manuscript evidence in support of such a revision, and further the text does not seem to warrant such a radical change. As it stands, the text makes goods sense, even if the poetic structure seems a little varied from the anticipated norm²⁴.

There is a second reason why the text, as it stands, should be the preferred reading. If we divide the psalm as suggested in the MT, then the first word in the prophetic oracle would be 'today' (Mwyh). And with this opening word, the psalmist sets the tenor — a deuteronomic tenor — for the remainder of the psalm. In Deut 2,18 and 26,3, the speeches given there both begin with Mwyh, in effect setting the stage for the words to follow. In a similar fashion, the psalmist here has opted to employ Mwyh at the beginning of the oracle, thus preparing the worshiper for that which is to follow. As will be noted below, there are numerous references to the deuteronomic tradition in vv. 7b-11, therefore it should not be too surprising that an obvious allusion to the deuteronomic tradition, Mwyh, should begin the oracle.

The use of 'today' (Mwyh) recalls the frequent use of this term throughout the book of Deuteronomy²⁵. Tate notes that 'the expression stresses the urgency of hearing the message and also links the past with the present'²⁶. Thus that which is to follow, the Meribah-Massah tradition from the past, has implications for the present, for today²⁷.

A second deuteronomic influence found in 7b is the exhortation for the people to 'listen to his (YHWH's) voice'. Central to the deuteronomic corpus is the call to return to YHWH (cf. Judg 2,16; 3,9; 1 Sam 7,3; 1 Kgs 8,46-53; 2 Kgs 17,3; 23,25). As H.W. Wolff has suggested, intrinsic to the return of YHWH is 'listening to the voice of Yahweh, your God'²⁸. With this phrase another implicit reference to the deuteronomic tradition is established.

The appropriation of the Meribah-Massah tradition begins in v. 8, but again, the psalmist opts to use a deuteronomic form of speech to introduce the tradition, 'Do not harden your hearts'. Hossfeld has suggested that this expression leads the reader further into the domain of deuteronomic-deuteronomistic speech, where normally, the phrase 'hardening of the neck appears' (Deut 10,16; 2 Kgs 17,14; Jer 7,26, 17,23; 19,15)²⁹. Through the use of these three deuteronomic phrases as introductory devices, the Meribah-Massah tradition is recast, serving as a warning to the people of 'today' who are dangerously close to 'hardening their hearts' that they should listen to the voice of God³⁰.

The use of both place names raises the question as to the intention of the author³¹. W. Propp has noted that some sources prefer one name over the other³². Deuteronomy prefers Massah (Deut 6,16; 9,22), while P seems to prefer Meribah (Num 20,13.24; 27,14). In Ps 95, however, while both names do appear, clearly the deuteronomic trend continues, with the emphasis falling on Massah — the idea of putting God to the test.

The arrangement of the place names in v. 8 and the verbs in v. 9 suggests that the emphasis is on Massah. Although the place name 'Meribah' appears, its verbal form, byr, 'to contend', does not appear in the subsequent verses, as might be expected. But not only does the place name 'Massah' appear in v. 8, its verbal form, hsn, appears in v. 9. Yet instead of hsn appearing with byr, it appears with Nxb, 'to prove'. Hossfeld argues that the verb Nxb , which appears in 9b is meant to stand in a parallel construction with the verb in 9a, hsn³³. The point that must be noted is that while the two places, Meribah ('contention') and Massah ('testing'), appear in a parallel relationship (v. 8), the parallel does not hold true in the following verse. The parallel verbs in v. 9 both emphasize the idea of putting God to the test — thus validating the claim that the true emphasis is on the ideas surrounding Massah and not those surrounding Meribah. Thus as Davies has suggested, the intent behind the use of the Massah-Meribah tradition is not primarily on the disobedience connected with the lack of water, as seen in the Meribah tradition, but rather the emphasis is on the questioning of the presence of God, as reflected best in the Massah tradition³⁴.

The final verse returns the psalm to a deuteronomic tenor with the proclamation from YHWH, 'They shall not enter my rest'. A similar proclamation of judgment does not appear in either of the primary narratives concerning Massah or Meribah (Exod 17; Num 20)³⁵. The quote cited by the psalmist appears to have come from Deut 12,9, a text unrelated to the Massah or Meribah tradition. As Georg Braulik has noted, the phrase hxwnm-l) )wb appears in only two places, Ps 95,11 and Deut 12,9³⁶. Thus, the psalmist must have elected to conclude his work by citing a text outside of the Massah-Meribah tradition. The question that remains is why?

The word for rest, hxwnm, and the verbal form, xwn, appear throughout the deuteronomic material³⁷. The idea of rest in the deuteronomic tradition is typically defined as 'living at peace in the land — a deuteronomistic benefit of hope and the fruit of obedience, as well as the substance of God's promises'³⁸. Yet in Ps 95, the use seems to be extended beyond the geographical notion of land. In Deut 12,9, hxwnm does appear, but in specific reference to the temple — 'the place that the Lord your God will choose as a dwelling for his name'. But in Ps 95,11 the threat of the oracle, 'they shall not enter my rest', is not really whether a worshiper can enter into the temple of God, but whether they will remain in the presence of God³⁹. Throughout the psalm, this theme is repeated. In v. 2, the worshiper is invited to 'come into his presence', and through the use of the Massah-Meribah tradition, the psalmist pleads with the worshiper not to question the presence of God in the midst of his people. And the psalmist concludes the psalm with the dire consequences of those who fail to heed the words of the prophetic oracle — they will find themselves apart from the presence of God.

In summary then, what can be said about Ps 95? The psalmist wrote at a critical time in the life of Israel. The devastation of the exile had challenged Israel's conviction that they were the people of God. In an attempt to express his faith in their status as the people of God (the community hermeneutic), the psalmist borrowed phrases and words from Ps 100, reminding them of their call to worship God — as his people. Ps 100 celebrated that the people of Israel were indeed the people of God unequivocally, but in light of the social context, and the recent events, the promises and conclusions of Ps 100 seemed empty. As a result, the psalmist changes the tenor of the psalm and concludes the psalm with a prophetic oracle.

In the second half of the psalm, the psalmist cites the Massah-Meribah tradition, but adapts it through the use of several deuteronomic devices. Through the use of these devices, the psalmist locks in on the primary issue: whether the people believed God is still present among them. The Massah-Meribah tradition is cited as a moment in Israel's history in which the nation was less than stellar in their performance, primarily because the people failed to recognize the presence of God.

In Ps 95, the psalmist calls the people to worship God, much as an earlier psalmist did in Ps 100. Yet in addition to the call to worship, there is a plea for the people to listen to the voice of God and not harden their hearts as did their ancestors at Massah – Meribah. But for those who cannot heed such a warning, they need not worry about worshiping God (vv. 1-7), they shall not even enter his 'rest'.

SUMMARY

In a previous issue of Biblica (76 [1995] 540-550) W.H. Schniedewind argued that Ps 100 had a major influence on the psalmist who wrote Ps 95. In this study, I argue for a diachronic approach to intertextuality, which examines both the literary and the social environment. I contend that the two together actually create an intertextual hermeneutic which allows the psalmist to incorporate previous traditions and texts in such a way as to address changing social and religious demands.
Based on citation, allusion and reversal, I contend that the psalmist of Ps 95 did in fact incorporate element of Ps 100, but in addition, the psalmist added the Massah-Meribah tradition, while adding a deuteronomic slant to the psalms. The use of the Massah-Meribah tradition along the deuteronomic influences, created a psalm that would have been particularly appropriate for a community still reeling from the devastation of exile.

NOTES

¹ W.H. SCHNIEDEWIND, "'Are We His People or Not?' Biblical Interpretation During Crisis", Bib 76 (1995) 540-550.

² Ibid., 546.

³ SCHNIEDEWIND, "'Are We His People or Not?'", 548.

⁴ M. FISHBANE, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford 1985).

⁵ M. FISHBANE, "Inner-biblical Exegesis: Types and Strategies of Interpretation in Ancient Israel", Midrash and Literature (eds. G.H. HARTMAN – S. BUDICK) (New Haven 1986) 36. Fishbane further avers, 'Within Ancient Israel, as long as the textual corpus remained open, Revelation and Tradition were thickly interwoven and interdependent, and the received Hebrew Bible is itself, therefore the product of an interpretative tradition'.

⁶ R. MASON, "Inner-biblical Exegesis", A Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation (eds. R. J. COGGINS – J.L. HOULDEN) (Philadelphia 1990) 313.

⁷ J. KUGEL, "The Bible's Earliest Interpreters", Prooftexts 7 (1987) 275. Kugel argues, the 'adoption of these four specific categories seems to have been generated not so much by a concern for social milieus and the like as by Fishbane's continuous contemplation of later, specifically rabbinic, exegesis, with which it is his special mission to establish early biblical interpretation's organic connection'.

⁸ L. ESLINGER, "Inner-biblical Exegesis and Inner-biblical Allusion: The Question of Category", VT 42 (1992) 47-58.

⁹ Ibid., 56.

¹⁰ See B. D. SOMMER, "Exegesis, Allusion, and Intertextuality in the Hebrew Bible: A Response to Lyle Eslinger", VT 46 (1996) 479-489, and W. M. SCHNIEDEWIND, "'Are We His People or Not?'", 540-550.

¹¹ SOMMER, "Exegesis, Allusion, and Intertextuality in the Hebrew Bible", 489.

¹² Ibid.

¹³ M. FISHBANE, "The Hebrew Bible and Exegetical Tradition", Intertextuality in Ugarit and Israel (ed. J.C. de MOOR) (Leiden 1998) 18, states, 'the Hebrew Bible is the product of tradition in diverse stages of unfolding, and that to catch the content in diverse contexts would be to penetrate beneath the textual surface to the living reality of Israel'.

¹⁴ D. BOYARIN, Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash (ISBL; Bloomington 1990) 94.

¹⁵ SCHNIEDEWIND, "'Are We His People or Not?'", 547.

¹⁶ On the use of Ps 100 in Ps 79 and Ezek 34, see SCHNIEDEWIND, "'Are We His People or Not?'", 545-550.

¹⁷ SCHNIEDEWIND, "'Are We His People or Not?'", 547 argues, 'The implicit dialogue between Psalms 100 and 95 is underscored by the scribal tradition reflected in some Hebrew manuscripts which harmonizes 95,7 to follow more closely 100,3 (cf. BHS)'. For a similar conclusion, see K. SEYBOLD, Die Psalmen (HAT; Tьbingen 1996) 378. See also the treatment of Psalm 100 by D.M. HOWARD, Jr., The Structure of Psalm 93–100 (BJSUCSD 5; Winona Lake 1997) 93-94.

¹⁸ R.B. HAYS, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven 1989) 30.

¹⁹ As noted earlier, in vv. 1-7b there is great similarity in language and construction between Ps 100 and Ps 95. But in the remainder of the psalm, the traditions of Israel's past dominate the content. The emphasis is less on the linguistic parallels and more on the appropriation of the tradition in the new context.

²⁰ G. H. DAVIES, "Psalm 95", ZAW (1973) 183-195.

²¹ Ibid., 183.

²² H. GUNKEL, Die Psalmen (Gцttingen 1929) 419.

²³ H. J. KRAUS, Psalms 60–150 (Minneapolis 1993) 244. GUNKEL, Die Psalmen, 417, opts for the same solution.

²⁴ Many commentators take the MT as it stands, opting not to emend the text. Seefor example, SEYBOLD, Die Psalmen; M.E. TATE, Psalms 51–100 (WBC 20; Dallas 1990); M. DAHOOD, Psalms II (AB 17; Garden City 1968); A. A. ANDERSON, The Book of Psalms (NCBC; Grand Rapids 1972) II. See also the discussion in HOWARD, The Structure of Psalms 93–100, 56-57.

²⁵ In the book of Deuteronomy, Mwyh appears at least 54 times, all of them stressing the importance of 'today' for the relationship between YHWH and his people.

²⁶ TATE, Psalms 51–100, 502.

²⁷ F. -L. HOSSFELD, "Psalm 95: Gattungsgeschichtliche, kompositionskritische, und bibeltheologische Anfragen", Neue Wege der Psalmenforschung (FS. W. Beyerlin; [Hrsg. K. SEYBOLD – E. ZENGER] Herders Biblische Studien 1; Freiburg 1994) 36, argues that the Deuteronomic 'today' calls for an immediate decision for the obedient (Gehorsam), the speaker wishes that the people would hear the voice of God.

²⁸ H.W. WOLFF, "The Kergyma of the Deuteronomic Historical Work", The Vitality of Old Testament Traditions (eds. H.W. WOLFF – W. BRUEGGEMANN (Atlanta 1975) 98.

²⁹ HOSSFELD, "Psalm 95", 36, contends that it is possible that Deut 10,16 appears as the source of this change, since here the language of the foreskin of the heart is combined with the hardening of the neck.

³⁰ H. Gunkel, in his discussion on "Prophetic Elements in the Psalms" notes that the admonition not to harden the heart has parallels to the prophetic literature. See Amos 5,4b-6; Jer 4,3; 7,3.4; 13,15; Isa 55,6. On the prophetic elements in the psalms, see H. GUNKEL – J. BEGRICH, An Introduction to the Psalms (MLBS; Macon 1998) 251-292.

³¹ The origin of the Massah / Meribah tradition and of the coalescing of the two traditions is difficult to establish. Davies has noted that the two traditions appear separately in some places, but in many other texts, the two names appear together. In some places such as Exod 17, Deut 33,8 and Ps 95,8, they appear together, but in other places such as Deut 6,16; 9,22, there is mention of only Massah, and further, in Num 20,1-13 and Ps 81,7 mention Meribah alone (DAVIES, "Psalm 95", 193-194). In his treatment of Exod 17,1-17, M. NOTH, Exodus (OTL; Philadelphia 1962) 139, proposed a solution to the joining of the two traditions by suggesting that the Meribah tradition existed first and then later, most likely as a deuteronomic expansion, the Massah name was inserted.

³² W.H. PROPP, "Massah and Meribah", ABD VI, 600.

³³ HOSSFELD, "Psalm 95", 37.

³⁴ DAVIES, "Psalm 95", 194, notes, 'The oracular warning is saying not only, "Do not be rebellious as your fathers were about the waters of Meribah," but it is also saying, "Do not question the presence of God here today as your fathers questioned it as Massah"'. Similarly, TATE, Psalms 51–100, 502, notes, 'the testing of the Meribah-generation was the questioning of the reality of the presence of Yahweh'.

³⁵ In Exod 17, there is no mention of a declaration of judgment. In Num 20, God declares judgment by saying, 'You shall not bring this assembly into the land that I have given them'. Clearly, in Num 20, the judgment pertains explicitly to Moses and Aaron.

³⁶ G. BRAULIK, "Gottes-Ruhe-Das Land oder Tempel? Zu Psalm 95:11", Freude an der Weisung des Herrn. Beitrдge zur Theologie der Psalmen (FS. H. Gros; [Hrsg. E. HAAG – F.L. HOSSFELD] Stuttgart 1987) 41.

³⁷ H.D. PREUSS, "xvw%n nыah?", TDOT IX, 277-286. Examples include Deut 3,20; 12,10; 25,19; Josh 1,13.15; 21,44; 22,4; 23,1; Judg 3,30; 8,28; 2 Sam 7,1.11; 2 Kgs 5,18.

³⁸ Ibid., 280.

³⁹ HOSSFELD, "Psalm 95", 39, notes that the rest of YHWH is generally judged as a metaphor for the close (enge) relationship between Israel and YHWH. H.J. KRAUS, Psalms 60–150, 248, opts for a similar interpretation of hxwnm in v. 11. He suggests that it is more than just possession of the land, it is 'a salvific blessing that is not material, but personal, and that has its root and center in God himself'.