Structures of the songs of ascent

One important question for the songs of ascent (Psalms 120-134) is how are they have been arranged to be read. The psalter as a whole does not follow any order such as length (like the Qur'an for instance) or chronology, so a lot of recent work on the psalms in general has been on the arrangement. Someone has deliberately divided the psalter into five books, with little doxologies in the final few verses to conclude them, so it seems the organisation has intruded into the text of at least four psalms in the psalter.

But what about the songs of ascent? Is there any structure or logic to the ordering? Here are a few suggestions which range from the interesting but untested to the influential. 

Concentric structure

Peter J. Williams suggests a concentric structure as follows (supplemented by James Bejon):

120-126 (7 psalms)

Yhwh occurs 24 times

Yah occurs once

2 David psalms (122,124)

House 3 times

Dwell/Sit 3 times

127
Yhwh occurs 3 times
Yah occurs once
Only Solomon psalm in the collection
House once
Dwell/Sit once

128-134 (7 psalms)

Yhwh occurs 24 times

Yah occurs once

2 David psalms (122,124)

House 3 times

Dwell/Sit 3 times

For Williams, this shows that the central focus is that Yhwh is needed to build house and a dynasty.

The problem with any numerological thesis are the exceptions. To his groups of 7, I could also add:

• Son (2 in, 5 after)
• Eye (5 before, 2 after)
• Zion (2 before, 5 after)
• Shalom (6 before, 1 after)

Other common words are David (3 before, 6 after), bless (1 before, 8 after), guard/guardian (6 before, 2 in, 4 after), and Israel (4 before, 5 after). If there were a numerological arrangement, then these other lexemes which break the pattern are greatly inconvenient. I discuss this at length in my book with reference to Addison G. Wright who went a bit number crazy in Ecclesiastes, resorting to adjusting the text where it didn't fit his thesis, so convinced was he that he was correct. 

Narrative order

Derek Kidner (Tyndale) has a different approach, reading them together as a story. He isn't able to find a place for each psalm in the collection, but senses that there is some orderly progression in the collection. For instance:

Ps 120: distant pilgrims
Ps 122: into Jerusalem
Pss 133-134: in the temple

The idea is that each psalm was sung at a different point in the journey, with 123-132 obviously much smaller steps (the pilgrim is already in Jerusalem by this point!), but as a whole, the collection is ordered moving from out to in. I think with some adaptation this theory is workable, but is it right? I don't know.

David Mitchell has a much larger sweep, and describes the metanarrative of the psalter like this:

Ps 45: the King comes
Ps 50: Israel gathered in
Pss 73-83: nations gather for war
Ps 87: the King cut off
Ps 110: rescued by messianic King
Pss 111-118:  songs of messianic victory
Pss 120-134:  ascent of all Israel to celebrate feast of tabernacles

He develops this in another book (which I haven't read) specifically about pss 120-134, which sounds interesting but from reading the synopsis (hidden codes?) perhaps a bit far off the deep end for me.

Three groups

Perhaps the most interesting approach for me (I think I have become a Zenger fanboy) is the three-part approach described by Erich Zenger (Herders/Hermeneia). Each group of five psalms has its own narrative arc:

120-124
lament—history—praise
          125-129
          the wicked—life under God—the wicked
130-134
lament—history—praise

There is something aesthetically satisfying about this, in that the groupings aren't too big, and it does have a certain explanatory power. Also, after engaging a little with Williams and Bejon on twitter, I wonder whether the two theories could be combined of the groups of three with a larger concentric pattern. 

Whatever the editors initially intended, the number one sign is the "songs of ascent" in the heading. This links all these 15 psalms together as one unit, to be read as one unit, and to be understood on reflection and with reference to one another.

Ultimately, the proof is in the reading. Which of the structures help us read the book better? I don't know yet - but when I work it out I'll be sure to get back to you!