Lukan Delights: First Testament Motifs of Luke's Infancy Narrative

Luke’s Gospel speaks of the witnesses or original eyewitnesses to the Gospel right at the beginning of his Infancy Prologue.[1] Kuhn believes[2] that the characters of the Infancy narrative are also included in this term of original eyewitnesses.[3] I would like to extend that term to also include the First Testament characters drawn on by Luke. John’s Gospel speaks of Jesus saying that Abraham saw his day and rejoiced.[4] Hebrews 11:13 also claims that the saintly Israelite heroes saw the events of salvation. Some scholars believe that Luke himself or Theophilus the former High Priest (under the influence of Luke and Paul) wrote Hebrews.[5] Thus extending Kuhn’s idea I would see that the First Testament characters hidden behind the events of Luke’s Infancy narrative are the original or primordial prophetic eyewitnesses to the coming of the Jewish Messiah. In the light and power of the Incarnation and Resurrection beyond time and space these First Testament Patriarchs and Matriarchs become the primordial witnesses of the events of the life of the Messiah and his kingdom that is coming. In Jewish thought this is called “the bond of life” and in the Church the “communion of saints”. The First Testament motifs and allusions are so numerous in the Infancy narrative of Luke that this short research paper can only touch on a few examples.

Some scholars such as Raymond Brown believe that Luke’s Infancy narrative is a form of Jewish midrash. This kind of midrashic approach uses the First Testament texts to support a Second Testament concept of “fulfilment”. This approach isn’t primarily concerned about the original historical context of the First Testament text.[6] This method is found throughout the writings of the New Testament and the writings and teachings of the fathers, doctors and mystics of the Church.[7] It owes much to the Jewish concept of the four senses of Scripture called PaRDeS.[8] Pardes is a Persian word meaning Garden and is connected to the famous Rabbinic tale of the four Rabbis who entered the mystical Garden in Heaven.[9] The P represents Peshat the literal/narrative/historical level, the R is Remetz the allegorical level, D is Drash the moral/homiletical level and S is Sod the mystical/anagogical level of reading Scripture. Traditionally all four senses are used in the exegesis of Scripture in both Judaism and Catholicism. It is only in recent times that exegesis of Scripture has been handicapped by being limited to only the historical critical (peshat) level of analysis. Judaism sees the need for both masculine and feminine approaches to reflect the Divinity.[10] Peshat and Drash are more masculine approaches that needs to be balanced by the feminine approaches of Remetz and Sod. When the masculine approaches dominant at the expense of the feminine then Judaism associates this with the drying up of the feminine waters of Miriam’s well[11] which turns Torah study into dry intellectualism and moralism.

Kessler writes that he believes that the writings and insights of the female prophetesses like Miriam and Huldah of the First Testament are possibly hidden under the name of the male prophets.[12] Many writers have also claimed that behind the text of Luke’s Infancy narrative are the stories told by the Second Testament Miriam who is called the Blessed Virgin Mary by the Gentiles.[13] Warner states that when the Greek text of parts of Luke’s Infancy narrative is translated back into Hebrew, scholars discover it is in beautiful alliterative Hebrew poetry.[14] One writer speaks of Luke’s infancy as conceived in the feminine mind due to its contemplative tone.[15] The very name of Miriam for the mother of the Messiah alludes to the important place Miriam of the First Testament plays in Jewish belief. Miriam is a prophetess who played an important role at the Red Sea leading the women in song and dance.[16] Jewish tradition believes the handmaid Miriam beheld the Divinity without any veils as the God of salvation (as a naked prepubescent boy) when the mystical heavens parted for her at the same time that the earthly seas parted.[17] The concept of the handmaid of the Lord in Luke 1:38 alludes to both the virginal Miriams of the First and Second Testaments as well as to Rachel and other Hebrew matriarchs and female saints such as Judith, Esther and Abigail.[18]

When we read Luke’s Infancy on the mystical /anagogical level we return to the first chapter of Genesis (Bereshit) to Primordial or Original time in accord with a Jewish manner of interpreting Torah. Just as Christian tradition and art associated the Virgin and the mystery of the Incarnation as occurring at the well in Nazareth,[19] so the First Miriam was associated with the Rock that was called the Well of Miriam.[20] Jewish tradition teaches that the Well of Miriam was created on the twilight between the first and second days and that the mouth of Miriam’s Well was created on the Sabbath Eve of Creation week.[21] [22]This well is found in the Hebrew undertext of Genesis 1. When we count 4 x 26 starting with the final letter mem [[מ of the first use of the word waters (mayim מ׳ם) in the Bible, it spells out the name of Miriam [[מר׳ם. In this well or mystical womb is hidden the light of the Messiah.[23]

The account in Luke of the Incarnation alludes to this Miriam motif found in the ancient Jewish mystical reading of Torah. Luke reveals that this new Miriam in the mystery of the Incarnation is the new Ark of the Covenant. Warner tells us that Luke uses the word ‘overshadows’ in recalling the annunciation which alludes to the overshadowing of the Shekhinah (Presence) of God over the Ark of the Covenant in Exodus 40:34. This Shekhinah itself is associated with feminine imagery and Miriam and the Matriarchs of Israel are identified with her.[24] [25] Luke again alludes to the concept of the Ark of the Covenant in the visitation. Elizabeth crying out in encountering the pregnant Virgin, “How am I worthy to have the Mother of my Lord come unto me?” alludes to the narrative in 2 Samuel 6 where David encounters the Ark of the Covenant and cries out, “How shall the ark of the Lord come unto me?”. Mary then staying with Elizabeth for three months parallels the Ark of the Covenant staying with the Gittite for three months.[26]

Luke’s infancy and Gospel demonstrates an author who is focused on the priestly aspects of the revelation of the Messiah. Some writers such as Strelan believe that Luke was a respected Jewish priest rather than a Gentile doctor.[27] Other scholars also consider Luke to have been a Hellenist Jew rather than a Gentile. [28] Wenham gives a number of reasons for identifying Luke with the Hellenist Jew Lucius of Cyrene.[29] Luke writes of the Holy Family in the Temple where Simeon blesses the Mother and Child. Simeon alludes to the holy High-Priest Simeon (Simon) the Just[30]. Zechariah and Elizabeth (Elisheba) also alludes to Elisheba the wife of the first High Priest Aaron. Zechariah also alludes to the martyred priest Zechariah ben Jehoiada.[31] Carmignac who for twenty five years researched the Hebrew origins of the Synoptic Gospels found when he translated the Greek of the Benedictus prayer of Zechariah back into Hebrew that it contained a Hebrew play on words. He discovered that the Benedictus (Luke 1:68-79) when translated into Hebrew consists of three strophes of seven stitches each. The first stitch of the second strophe is the word in Hebrew chanan (grace) which is the root of  Yochanan (John in English), zakar (remember) is the second stitch is the root of  Zechariah and Shaba (oath or swear) the third stitch is the root of the name Elizabeth (Elisheba). He also found elements which were reflected in usage in the Dead Sea Scrolls.[32]

The concept of the infertility of Elizabeth who then is blessed by God with a child alludes to a number of the Israelite Matriarchs. Many have pointed to the parallels between Hannah the wife of Elkanah and mother of Samuel and Elizabeth the wife of Zechariah and mother of John the Baptist.[33] [34] Warner also sees parallels with the birth of Samson and the birth of Rebecca’s twins as well as with Hannah. She perceives some significance that the mother of the Virgin was also called Hannah (St Anne). She also points out the parallels between Hannah’s song of praise and the Virgin’s Magnificat.[35] Warner also sees parallels with the song of Miriam and the Magnificat of the new Miriam of the Second Testament.[36] However many believe that the parallels between Abraham and Sarah and their son Isaac and Zechariah and Elizabeth and their son John is stronger.[37] [38] Mary’s almost child to parents relationship with Zechariah and Elizabeth (as the types of Abraham and Sarah) may allude to the mysterious and mystical daughter of Abraham called Bakol (with All) found in Jewish tradition based on the verse “Abraham was blessed with all”[39] (bakol also read as bat kol daughter of All).[40] This links her with the concept of the female Wisdom who is the artisan of All[41] and Shekhinah.[42]

Karris and Fitzmyer see allusions to Malachi in the references to the Temple and the Messiah being proclaimed there.[43] They also see parallels with Daniel 9-10 in regards to having visions (in Daniel) alluding to the vision of Zechariah in the Temple as well as an encounter with the archangel Gabriel (in Daniel) alluding to Our Lady’s encounter with Gabriel.[44] Luke 1:17 refers to John the Baptist as a type of Elijah who reconciles fathers and sons which refers to Malachi 3:23 and also Sirach 48:10.[45] Catholic Carmelite spirituality and exegesis has a rich tradition associating the prophet Elijah with the Virgin Mary and the foot or hand shaped cloud.[46]

The richness of the midrashic exegesis of Luke’s Infancy narrative can be seen in that just the one word “Rejoice” (Hail) used by Gabriel in his greeting to the Virgin, leads us to examine all the references in the First Testament that are connected to the concept of “Rejoice! Daughter of Zion”, as taught by Pope John Paul II[47]. Bock discusses how Luke using the midrashic exegesis approach with Luke 1: 28-33 and Zephaniah 3:14-17 proclaims the Virgin Mary as the Daughter of Zion. He sees the Hebrew word b’kirbek (meaning inner part or midst) as referring to the Greek en gastri (in womb or inner part) of Luke 1: 31.[48] The phrase “Be not afraid” of the angelic salutation also alludes to similar divine, angelic and human encounters in the First Testament beginning with Genesis 15:1 when God tells Abraham to not be afraid. Mary as the mystical Daughter of Abraham is greeted in the same manner as her forefather Abraham. Abraham was the one who entered into Covenant with the God who promised that from Abraham would come the Divine Seed (that was first promised to Adam in Genesis 3:15). Thus I would propose that the genealogy of Luke 3 should be considered as part of the Infancy narrative as it proclaims in a veiled manner that Mary is that Woman who as daughter of Abraham and daughter of Adam brings forth the promised Seed.

This leads us into the Davidic references of the Infancy narrative where Jesus is seen as the Messiah son of David and this alludes to Mary as the Davidic Queen Mother (G’birah).[49] Thus we see the parallels with Bathsheba the mother of Solomon the Davidic King who enthrones his mother as Queen beside him as an intercessor.[50] This practice of reigning and enthroned Queen Mothers becomes an ongoing feature of the Davidic Monarchy. Thus if Yeshua is the Davidic King Messiah then his mother must be the messianic Davidic Queen Mother. The mention of Joseph as the virginal father of the Messiah Yeshua (Jesus) alludes to the First Testament Joseph and there are many parallels of this Joseph with both St. Joseph and Jesus.[51] The choice of the name Yeshua (in Aramaic) or Yehoshua (in Hebrew) also alludes to Joshua the successor of Moses as well as the High Priest Yeshua mentioned by the prophet Zechariah.[52] Another clear motif from the First Testament is the concept of the firstborn son which is directly referred to in Luke’s Infancy as is the concepts surrounding circumcision. One immediately thinks of Isaac as the firstborn son of Sarah and of the firstborn sons of Israel and Egypt as well as the circumcision of Isaac on the eighth day. I would have also liked to draw our attention to the Temple motifs of Luke’s infancy narrative in more detail as well as a more detailed reflection on the Torah motifs especially in regards to Mary, Jesus and Joseph, but that would need another paper. Another motif I would have liked to explore further would be based on one of my favourite icons of Mary as the Burning Bush and the parallels between Moses divine encounter at the Burning Bush and Mary at the Annunciation and its connection with the burning pillar of fire (in Exodus) and the burning fire unto the heart of heaven (Deut. 4:11).

The term reshit meaning beginning or first mentioned in Luke 1:2 in regards to the eyewitnesses also alludes to the concepts of first fruits (of dough, of grain and of land) that Jewish tradition links to the concept of the mystical mother and Queen.[53] Thus the Holy Family and the other characters of Luke’s Infancy narrative along with their First Testament prototypes are presented by Luke as the first fruits of the Kingdom. In this short research paper I was only able to touch on some aspects of the First Testament motifs found in Luke’s Infancy narrative and offer them as a kind of first fruits offering (terumah). However I hope I have been able to demonstrate the very Jewish nature and purpose of author of the Gospel which would only be relevant to one immersed in the mind set and culture of the Jewish people.[54] It would seem very unlikely with such a midrashic Jewish approach that a non-Jewish physician writing to fellow Gentiles would be responsible for this infancy narrative or even the rest of the Gospel of Luke which also demonstrates such Jewish and Qumranic features and motifs.[55] [56]

Bibliography

• Allen, David L. Lukan Authorship of Hebrews. B&H Publishing Group, 2010.
• Anglin, Lise. "Queen Mother: A Biblical Theology of Mary's Queenship." Catholic Insight Jan. 2007: 44.
• Antonelli, Judith S. In the image of God: a feminist commentary on the Torah. Jason Aronson, Incorporated, 1997.
• Berlin, Adele. Marc Zvi Brettler, and Michael A. Fishbane. The Jewish Study Bible: Jewish Publication Society Tanakh Translation. Oxford University Press, USA, 2004.
• Bock, Darrell. Proclamation from Prophecy and Pattern: Lucan Old Testament Christology. Vol. 12. A&C Black, 1987.
• Caplan, Harry. "The four senses of scriptural interpretation and the mediaeval theory of preaching." Speculum 4, no. 03 (1929): 282-290.
• Carmignac. Jean. The Birth of the Synoptic Gospels. Franciscan Press, 1987.
• Chavel, C. (translator), Ramban Nachmanides: Commentary on the Torah, Genesis Brooklyn, NY: Shiloh Publishing House, 1999.
• Doze, Andrew. Saint Joseph: Shadow of the Father. Alba House, 1992.
• Elbaum, Dov. Into the Fullness of the Void: A Spiritual Autobiography, Jewish Lights Publishing, USA, 2013.
• Ellis, E Earle (Professor). The Gospel of Luke USA: Eerdmans, 1980.
• Van der Heide, Albert "PARDES: Methodological Reflections on the Theory of the Four Senses." Journal (The) of Jewish Studies London 34, no. 2 (1983): 147-159.
• John Paul II, Palm Sunday of the Passion of our Lord, Homily, 13 April 2003, available at http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/homilies/2003/documents/hf_jp- ii_hom_20030413_palm-sunday.html
• Karris, Robert J., “The Gospel According to Luke.” In The New Jerome Biblical Commentary. Edited by Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer and Roland E. Murphy. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1990. 675-721.
• Kessler, Ranier. "Miriam and the Prophecy of the Persian Period." The Prophets and Daniel: 77- 86.
• Kuhn, Karl A. "Beginning the Witness: The αυτoπται και υπηρεται of Luke's Infancy Narrative." New Testament Studies 49, no. 02 (2003): 237-255.
• Marie (of the Cross), Paul. Carmelite Spirituality in the Teresian Tradition. ICS Publications, 1997.
• Novick, Leah (Rabbi) On the Wings of Shekhinah: Rediscovering Judaism's Divine Feminine Wheaton; Quest Books; 2008.
• Patai, Raphael. The Hebrew Goddess, Detroit: Wayne State University, 1990.
• Pitre, Brant. “Jesus, the Messianic Banquet and the Kingdom of God,” Letters and Spirit Volume 5 (2009), 136-7.
• Scholem, Gershom Gerhard. Origins of the Kabbalah. Princeton University Press, 1991.
• Strelan, Rick. Luke the Priest: the Authority of the Author of the Third Gospel. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2013.
• Subtelny, Maria E. "The tale of the four sages who entered the Pardes: A talmudic enigma from a Persian perspective." Jewish Studies Quarterly 11, no. 1/2 (2004): 3-58.
• Warner, Marina. Alone of all her Sex: The Myth and the Cult of the Virgin Mary. Oxford University Press, USA, 2013.
• Wenham, John. "The Identification of Luke." Evangelical Quarterly 63, no. 1 (1991): 3-44.
• Williams, P. J. "The Original Language of the Lukan Infancy Narrative. By Chang-Wook Jung." The Journal of Theological Studies 58, no. 1 (2007): 220-221.
• Wright, Nicholas T, Jesus and the Victory of God, USA: Fortress Press, 1996).

---

[1] Luke 1:2

[2] Against the opinions of Raymond Brown and Fitzmyer and others.

[3] Karl A Kuhn, “Beginning the Witness: The αὐτοπαι και ὐπηρεται  of Luke’s Infancy Narrative,” New Testament Studies 49:2 (April 2003), 237-255

[4] John 8:56

[5] David L Allen, Lukan Authorship of Hebrews, (B&H Publishing Group, 2010), 327.

[6]  Darrell Bock, Proclamation from Prophecy and Pattern: Lucan Old Testament Christology. Vol. 12. A&C Black, 1987, 17.

[7] Harry Caplan, "The four senses of scriptural interpretation and the mediaeval theory of preaching," Speculum 4, no. 03 (1929): 282-290.

[8] Albert van der Heide, "PARDES: Methodological Reflections on the Theory of the Four Senses," Journal (The) of Jewish Studies London 34, no. 2 (1983): 147-159.

[9] Maria E Subtelny. "The tale of the four sages who entered the Pardes: A talmudic enigma from a Persian perspective." Jewish Studies Quarterly 11, no. 1/2 (2004): 3-58.

[10] Adele Berlin, Marc Zvi Brettler, and Michael A. Fishbane, The Jewish Study Bible: Jewish Publication Society Tanakh Translation (Oxford University Press, USA, 2004), 1978.

[11] See Numbers 20:1-2, Rashi loc. cit., B. Ta'anit 9a

[12] Rainer Kessler, "Miriam and the Prophecy of the Persian Period," The Prophets and Daniel: 77-86.

[13] Marina Warner, Alone of all her sex: The myth and the cult of the Virgin Mary. (Oxford University Press, USA, 2013), 7-8.

[14] Marina Warner, Alone of all her sex: The myth and the cult of the Virgin Mary, 8.

[15] Marina Warner, Alone of all her sex: The myth and the cult of the Virgin Mary,8.

[16] Exodus 15

[17] Dov Elbaum, Into the Fullness of the Void: A Spiritual Autobiography, (Jewish Lights Publishing, USA, 2013), 169.

[18] See Caroline N Mbonu, Handmaid: The Power of Names in Theology and Society. Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2010.

[19] Protoevangelium of James "And she took the pitcher and went forth to draw water, and behold, a voice said: 'Hail Mary, full of grace, you are blessed among women.'"

[20] Dov Elbaum, Into the Fullness of the Void: A Spiritual Autobiography, 167-168.

[21] Avot 5:6

[22] Judith S Antonelli, In the image of God: a feminist commentary on the Torah, (Jason Aronson, Incorporated, 1997), 178.     

[23] See Hebrew text of Genesis 1:2-5

[24] Zohar Chukat

[25] Rabbi Leah Novick, On the Wings of Shekhinah: Rediscovering Judaism's Divine Feminine (Wheaton; Quest Books; 2008), 64-65.  

[26] Marina Warner, Alone of all her sex: The myth and the cult of the Virgin Mary, 12.

[27] Rick Strelan, Luke the priest: the authority of the author of the third Gospel, (Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2013), 103-107.

[28] Professor E. Earle Ellis, The Gospel of Luke (USA: Eerdmans, 1980), 52-4.

[29] John Wenham, "The Identification of Luke." Evangelical Quarterly 63, no. 1 (1991): 3-44.

[30] Sirach 50

[31] 2 Chronicles 24

[32] Jean Carmignac. The Birth of the Synoptic Gospels. Franciscan Press, 1987.

[33] Karl A Kuhn, “Beginning the Witness: The αὐτοπαι και ὐπηρεται of Luke’s Infancy Narrative,” 679.

[34] Robert J. Karris., “The Gospel According to Luke,” in The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, eds. Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer and Roland E. Murphy (New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1990), 679.

[35] Marina Warner, Alone of all her sex: The myth and the cult of the Virgin Mary, 12.

[36] Marina Warner, Alone of all her sex: The myth and the cult of the Virgin Mary, 13.

[37] Marina Warner, Alone of all her sex: The myth and the cult of the Virgin Mary, 12.

[38] Karl A Kuhn, “Beginning the Witness: The αὐτοπαι και ὐπηρεται of Luke’s Infancy Narrative,” 242.

[39] Genesis 24:1

[40] Gershom Gerhard Scholem, Origins of the Kabbalah. (Princeton University Press, 1991), 87.

[41] Wisdom 7:22

[42] Raphael Patai, The Hebrew Goddess, (Detroit: Wayne State University, 1990), 108.

[43] Robert J Karris, “The Gospel According to Luke,” 679.

[44] Robert J Karris, “The Gospel According to Luke,” 679.

[45] P. J. Williams, "The Original Language of the Lukan Infancy Narrative. By Chang-Wook Jung." The Journal of Theological Studies 58, no. 1 (2007), 220-221.

[46] Paul Marie of the Cross, Carmelite Spirituality in the Teresian Tradition, ICS Publications, 1997.

[47] John Paul II, Palm Sunday of the Passion of our Lord, Homily, 13 April 2003, available at

 http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/homilies/2003/documents/hf_jp-ii_hom_20030413_palm-sunday.html

[48] Darrell Bock, Proclamation from Prophecy and Pattern: Lucan Old Testament Christology, 17.

[49]  Lise Anglin, "Queen Mother: A Biblical Theology of Mary's Queenship." Catholic Insight Jan. 2007: 44.

[50] I Kings 2:19

[51]  Andrew Doze. Saint Joseph: Shadow of the Father. Alba House, 1992.

[52] Zechariah 3

[53] Rabbi C Chavel (translator), Ramban Nachmanides: Commentary on the Torah, Genesis (Brooklyn, NY: Shiloh Publishing House, 1999), 20-21. "Now Israel, which is called reshit as mentioned above, is the "Kneset Yisrael", which is compared in the Song of Songs to a bride and whom Scripture in turn calls daughter, sister and mother. The Rabbis have already expressed this in a homiletic interpretation of the verse, 'Upon the crown wherewith his mother has crowned Him [Song of Songs 3:11]', and in other places." Similarly, the verse concerning Moses, 'And he chose a first part for himself' [Deut. 33;21], which they interpret to mean that Moses our teacher contemplated through a Isparklarya (lucid speculum/ clear crystal mirror or looking glass), and he saw that which is reshit (the first) for himself, and therefore merited the Torah. Thus all the Midrashim above have one meaning."

[54] Robert Lindsey found the Gospel of Luke even easier than the Gospel of Mark to translate back into Hebrew. See Robert Lindsey, Jesus, Rabbi and Lord (USA:CornerstonePublisher, 1990) 17-18.

[55] Nicholas T Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, (USA: Fortress Press, 1996), 558.

[56] Brant Pitre, “Jesus, the Messianic Banquet and the Kingdom of God,” Letters and Spirit Volume 5 (2009), 136-7.

Psalm 22 Bricolage: A Hebrew Catholic Critique of Certain Aspects of Psalm 22

Psalm 22 is one of those texts in the First Testament that has a polemical history between Jews and Christians and is called by those of the Second Testament a Messianic text. In this short essay I cannot cover this topic in any detail and I will discuss some limited aspects of the text with a focus on Psalm 22:16 (17) and Psalm 22:20 (21). While a vertical argumentative and polemic approach to Psalm 22 may aid scholarly understanding a more lateral sharing of wisdom approach to the Biblical text and textual criticism may be more fruitful. This gleaning of wisdom approach is called bricolage by Altes.[1] This is also the approach used by Rebbe Nachman of Breslov [2]and is called Likutey in Hebrew (gathering, gleanings). Levinas writes of “a wisdom older than the patent presence of a meaning in the writing. A wisdom without which the message buried deep within the enigma of the text cannot be grasped.”[3] Thus this approach allows for a broader landscape that allows for different layers and approaches to enrich our understanding and our encounter of the text and of our rendezvous with others in their encounter of the text.

Psalm 22 is read by traditional Christians and Jewish believers in Yeshua in the light of the Messiah Yeshua (Jesus) and they read the text as a prophetic foretelling of the sufferings of the Messiah.[4] Many Christians see Jesus’ cry from the cross,[5] of the words of the opening of Psalm 22, as the Messiah drawing our attention to the whole of the prophetic meaning of the Psalm in regards to the passion of the Messiah Yeshua.[6] Jewish readers see other Messianic figures in the text such as King David[7], King Hezekiah, Queen Esther[8] and the Messiah Ephraim[9] among others. Many commentators see the figure as a royal personage[10]. Others see the Lamenter of Psalm 22 not as a single person but rather a personification of Israel or the Jewish people. Esther Menn mentions the concerns of some believers that the emphasis on a historical personage may take away its power as a prayer or cry of the ordinary believer.[11] She also mentions Psalm 22 as being a part of the Jewish pre-exilic Temple ritual in regards to the rituals of healing for a person in distress[12].There is no reason that Psalm 22 can’t be read taking all these insights and perspectives into account. However Psalm 22 and the other Davidic Psalms are set in the social context of Judaism and its concerns, both cultural and religious. Some believe that the Psalms were composed in the pre-exilic period, others in the post-exilic.[13] Croft mentions that some scholars such as Birkeland and Rosenbaum consider the role of the antagonists in the Psalm to be crucial in identifying whether the Psalms are a product of the history of the pre or post exilic periods.[14]

Psalm 22:20 (in the Hebrew Bible it is verse 21) reads in Hebrew as הַצִּילָה מֵחֶרֶב נַפְשִׁי    מִיַּד-כֶּלֶב, יְחִידָתִי. (ha-tzilah me-cherev nafshi; miyad kalev, y’chidti). This means “Deliver from the sword my soul[15]; from the hand of the dog my only one (yachid). Rivka Ulmer[16] discusses how Jewish sources connect this yachid (only one or only begotten son) in Psalm 22 with the yachid of the Akedah (Binding of Abraham and Isaac). She writes:

The interpretation of the verse Save my soul from the sword, yehidati [my only one] from the power of the dog (Ps.22:21) does not only focus upon the lemma “dog,” but also upon “my only one.” Genesis Rabbah 46:7 (see Sifre Deuteronomy 313) contains an interpretation relating this Psalm to the Aqedah, the sacrifice of Isaac. Rabbinic hermeneutics situate Psalm 22:21 in the context of sacrificing a son. Your only son (Gen.22:12) is implied and juxtaposed to my only one (Ps.22:21); the text states God said to Abraham: “I give merit to you, as if I had asked you to sacrifice yourself and you did not refuse it.” My only one in this case would indicate that God recognized Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son. In another midrash, Numbers Rabbah 17:2, a lemma from Genesis Your only son, referring to Isaac, is changed to “your soul,” proof-text is Psalm 22:21. The ram sacrificed saves not only Isaac, but also Abraham. These passages show a nexus between Psalm 22:21 and Isaac, the “only son” of Abraham…[17]

Many writers claim that Psalm 22 is not perceived as a Messianic text by Judaism whereas Ulmer one of the leading Jewish scholars in this field clearly demonstrates that Jews of the past did interpret it in a Messianic light.[18] Christians saw this yachid in Psalm 22 and in the Akedah as alluding to the ‘only begotten son’ who is the suffering Messiah Jesus the son of Joseph and Miriam (Mary) and son of God the Father, which led to later Jewish authorities (due to the bitter polemics) to deny a Messianic significance to Psalm 22 in contradiction to past Jewish midrashim.[19]

This leads us to the rather polemic discussion of ‘the pierced one’ mentioned by Christians but is translated by Jewish scholars as ‘like a Lion’ in Psalm 22:16 (or 17). The textual evidence is complex as some Masoretic texts do have karu (they pierce or dig) rather than ka’ari (like a lion) and one of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Nachal Chever text) also has karu.[20] The Septuagint also has pierced (ωρυξαν). Here in Psalm 22 we seem to have the concept of a pierced one (karu) and a uniquely begotten son (yachid) and this is also found in Zechariah where it speaks of the people of Jerusalem and the House of David looking upon an apparition of a pierced one who is also a yachid[21].

However if we read the text of Psalm 22:16 (17) as “like a lion” (ka’ari) it can also be read in a Messianic manner as the Messiah is perceived as a Lion. The symbol of Judah is the Lion (Gen.49:9) and the Messiah Yeshua is called the Lion of the Tribe of Judah in the Apocalypse of John.[22] While some lions are mentioned in Psalm 22 in a negative way (along with dogs) the Hebrew for them is the aryeh form rather than ari. Thus the lion here which reminds us moderns of a kind of Aslan figure and may allude to the story in antiquity of Apion’s “Androcles and the Lion” and Aesop’s fable of the “Lion and the Mouse”. Both these stories tell of a Lion with a thorn piercing his paw (foot) and a kind one digging it out of its foot. These common tales may have been appealing to Jews of the Roman period and the rabbis may have used ka’ari as an alternative reading and then later, due to the polemical debates between Jews and Christians, ka’ari (like a lion) became the preferred reading of the Jewish community. It is common in Jewish rabbinic discussions to read certain words in the Hebrew texts differently and give a deeper meaning by the use of these alternative readings.[23]

If instead of reading this as referring to a male but rather as a female, then the Lion becomes a Lioness and alludes to Queen Esther which is another Jewish reading of Psalm 22.[24] This story of Esther also speaks of a wooden gallow that Haman builds to hang or crucify Mordechai. Mordechai is perceived as a type of the messianic Tzadik (the righteous one) according to the teaching of Rebbe Nachman and the Breslov rabbis.[25] Tkacz also writes that St Jerome also knew of traditions that ascribe the role of the lamenter of Psalm 22 to Esther and Mordechai.[26] Mordechai is perceived as a type (behinat) of the humble Tzadik (of Zechariah 9:9) and Queen Esther is a type of the Shekhinah (feminine Presence of God).[27] The name Gazelle of the Dawn (Ayelet haShahar) as the title of Psalm 22 alludes to the weeping Shekhinah who unites with the Tzadik to chant this lament.[28] Some Jewish sources see this lament of Psalm 22 as voiced by both Esther and Mordechai together.[29]

Esther’s husband the Persian king is described by Esther as a dog and a lion according to the Talmud. This account in the Babylonian Talmud places the events of Esther’s story in the context of Psalm 22. In this passage Esther’s royal pagan husband is associated, by her using the words of Psalm 22: 20-21 (21-22 in the Hebrew Bible), with both the concepts of the dog and the lion.[30]

R. Levi said: When she reached the chamber of the idols, the Divine Presence left her. She said, My God, My God, why have You forsaken me. (Ps. 22:2) Is it possible that You punish the inadvertent sin like the presumptuous one, or one done under compulsion like one committed willingly? Or is it because I called [Ahasuerus] “dog,” as it says Save my soul from the sword, my only one from the power of the dog?(Ps. 22:21) She immediately retracted and called him “lion,” as it says. Save me from the lion’s mouth (Ps 22:22).[31]

The Zohar also alludes to the apparitions of a dog and lion in regard to the Temple offerings.[32] When the offerings were accepted an image of a Lion crouching over its prey (the symbol of Judah)[33] appears above the sacrificial altar while the dogs hide themselves away. The dogs represent the gentiles.[34] However when the people sin the Lion is killed by the Tzadik and an image of a demonic dog appears and consumes the sacrifices.[35] The Zohar seems to be saying that this Tzadik (righteous one) killed the two lions of God (Ariels) which represent the two Temples due to sin. The concept of the two lions- The Lion and the Lioness in Zohar 1:6b also alludes to the lion and the lioness of Genesis 49:9. Thus we see that the lamenter of Psalm 22 can refer to an individual, to Israel as a collective and as the Temple. Whether one perceives the lamenter as a king or queen, or the personification of Israel or the Temple, or a prophecy of the Jewish Messiah (whether Yeshua or the future Mashiach Ephraim or Joseph or David) it can only be understood in the context of a Hebrew perspective rooted in the rites, customs, culture and ethics of Judaism.

Ulmer speaks of how the early Gentile Christians interpret the ‘adat m’rei’im’ of Psalm 22:16 (17) as ‘a synagogue of evil doers’ which for them meant the Jewish people.[36] As demonstrated by the Zohar and Rebbe Nachman the word rei’im often means lovers or friends rather than evil doers. Rebbe Nachman of Breslov in Likutey Moharan 36 links the concept of "devouring me" (the Davidic King Messiah) of Psalm 27:2 with the consecrated flesh of Haggai 2:12 and the "Eat lovers" of Song of Song 5:1. He teaches:

…“to devour my flesh”-This alludes that their eating- as it is said "Eat lovers"(Song of Songs 5:1)- namely their strengthening is "Consecrated flesh"(Haggai 2:12). This is to devour my flesh, the aspect of "The ascent of Yesod until Abba and Imma" ...[37].

Strictly speaking "Eat Lovers" should be translated as "Eat companions or friend (rei'im or rei'in)" whereas lovers is dodim. Rebbe Nachman of Breslov does not interpret mrei'im of Psalm 27:2 as evildoers but in accord with Song of Songs 5:1 and other passages in Tenakh[38] as friends or lovers (rei'im). Thus Psalm 22:16 may be read as “While dogs encompass me (a band of friends are about me) they (the dogs) pierce my hands and feet.” Thus ‘the synagogue of evildoers’ transforms from an anti-Jewish interpretation to a Jewish friendly ‘synagogue or band of friends’.

The original context of Psalm 22 in regards to King David may have been when he fled from his son Absalom.[39] Absalom is described like a young lion with his beautiful mane of hair[40] and David is the old lion who feels forsaken by God.[41] His greatly beloved son (yachid) Absalom is pierced by Joab with three darts (parallel to the three nails on the cross) on a tree in which he is caught by his hair. One immediately is reminded of the ram of sacrifice of the story of the Akedah caught in the thorns. The pathos of the opening verse of Psalm 22 “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?” match those of 2 Samuel 18:33 “…O my son Absalom, my son, my son Absalom! would God I had died for thee, O Absalom, my son, my son!”. This death of Absalom occurred in Ephraim’s Wood thus providing another link to the Messiah Ephraim which some Jewish writers see as the lamenter of Psalm 22.[42] Hosea 5:14 also alludes to Ephraim and two lions. Ephraim is described as a lion cub. If this leonine messianic figure refers to King Hezekiah then the Assyrian King Baladan refers to the dog according to the Talmud and the Zohar.[43]

There are many deeper levels of understanding the surface text which can enrich the spiritually of both Jew and Christians. Personally I don’t think reading the text in regards to great personalities takes away from its power to reflect the feelings and emotions of the ordinary believer who may be consoled even more so, knowing that even the great saints of God went through dark and troubled moments like we do.[44] There is no reason why the genesis of this Psalm’s composition couldn’t have begun with David even if later hands such as Solomon, Hezekiah, Ezra and others may have refined it and shaped it along with the other “Psalms of David” for the purposes of the Temple liturgy and synagogal prayer. There is also a possibility that the author of Psalm 22 drew on earlier lyrical elements coming from the Israelite lyrical tradition and thus drew from the stories of Moses and Abraham and incorporated them into his lyrics. This drawing on sources does not take away from the author’s creative originality as an author and it is the finished product which for believers is the infallible Word of God guaranteed by our faith communities or churches.

Whatever the original form, purpose or authorship of Psalm 22 it has been used in the Judeo-Christian traditions for a myriad of purposes. Many of us who have suffered greatly in life or felt under severe attack can resonant with the ever new and living words of Psalm 22 and perceive ourselves as the lamenter of Psalm 22. Many Christians and Messianic Jews will continue to enter into a deeper identification with the passion and death of their crucified Messiah and Tzadik through contemplation of Psalm 22 who recited the opening words of this Psalm on the Cross. Many Jews will also identify deeply with the lamenter of Psalm 22 being a personification of Israel or the Jewish people especially in the light of the passion and death of the Jewish people in the Shoah (Holocaust) of our own times and the growing isolation of the State of Israel. The remnant of practicing Christians in the West and the persecuted Christians of the Middle East may also find new solace in the words of this ancient Psalm of lament both as individuals and as messianic collective (Church). In this new suffering will the children of the First Covenant and the children of the Second Covenant be drawn together in messianic and eschatological hope of an anointed one?

---

[1] Liesbeth Korthals Altes, “A Theory of Ethical Reading” Theology and Literature: Rethinking Reader Responsibility (Palgrave Macmillan; Gordonsville VA, USA, 2006), 17.

[2] Chanani Haran Smith, Tuning the Soul; Music as a Spiritual Process in the Teachings of Rabbi Nahman of Bratzlav, 59.

[3] Emmanuel Levinas, In the Time of the Nations (London, Athlone Press, 1994), 38.

[4] Catherine Brown Tkacz. “Esther, Jesus, and Psalm 22”. The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Oct 2008; 70(4), 709.

[5] Mark 15:34, Matthew 27:46,

[6] Holly J.Carey. Jesus' Cry From the Cross. (London, GB: T & T Clark International, 2009),3-4.

[7] Esther M. Menn,  “No Ordinary Lament: Relecture and the Identity  of the Distressed in Psalm 22”

(University of Virginia in Harvard Theological Review October 2000),302.

[8] Menn  No Ordinary Lament: Relecture and the Identity  of the Distressed in Psalm 22; 308, 310.

[9] Rivka Ulmer, "Psalm 22 in Pesiqta Rabbati: The Suffering of the Jewish Messiah and Jesus." The Jewish Jesus: Revelation, Reflection, Reclamation (2011), 106

[10] Menn No Ordinary Lament: Relecture and the Identity  of the Distressed in Psalm 22, 309.

[11] Menn No Ordinary Lament: Relecture and the Identity  of the Distressed in Psalm 22, 303.

[12] Menn No Ordinary Lament: Relecture and the Identity  of the Distressed in Psalm 22, 304ff

[13] Steven J. L. Croft. Identity of the Individual in the Psalms. London, GB: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987, 15.

[14] Croft. Identity of the Individual in the Psalms, 16ff

[15]  An interesting study would be to reflect on this in the light of the sword that pierced the soul of Our Lady. In fact the whole Queen Esther dimension of reading this Psalm allows for a deeper Marian reading which Catholics would find incredibly enriching of their faith.

[16] A professor of Jewish studies, Ulmer is a world authority in midrash, or rabbinic interpretations of the Hebrew Bible.

[17] Ulver Psalm 22 in Pesiqta Rabbati: The Suffering of the Jewish Messiah and Jesus, 110.

[18] See Ulmer, Rivka. "The Contours of the Messiah in Pesiqta Rabbati." Harvard Theological Review 106, no. 02 (2013): 115-144.

[19] We see this today when many spokesmen for the Jewish communities will deny that in Jewish sources that it speaks of a resurrected suffering Messiah while at the same time a leading branch of Hasidic Jews, using Jewish sources, claims that their late Rebbe may be the Messiah son of Joseph and will rise from the dead.

[20] Ulver Psalm 22 in Pesiqta Rabbati: The Suffering of the Jewish Messiah and Jesus, 107-108.

[21] Zechariah 12:10. “And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced (karu), and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son (yachid), and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.”

[22] Rev.5:5

[23] Melila Hellner-Eshed, A River Flows from Eden: The Language of Mystical Experience in the Zohar, (California; Standford University Press; 2009).

[24]. Catherine Brown Tkacz. “Esther, Jesus, and Psalm 22”, 709ff.

[25] Rabbi Yehoshua Starrett,, ESTHER A Breslov Commentary on the Megillah (Jerusalem/New York; Breslov Research Institute;1992).

[26] Catherine Brown Tkacz. “Esther, Jesus, and Psalm 22”, 719.

[27] Rabbi Leah Novick  On the Wings of Shekhinah: Rediscovering Judaism's Divine Feminine (Wheaton; Quest Books; 2008),64-65.

[28] The Shekhinah is also called the Gazelle (Hind/Deer/Doe), the Matronita and Kneset Yisrael in the Jewish mystical tradition found in the Zohar and Kabbalah. As the weeping mother and sorrowful soul of all Israel she is also known as the Supernal Rachel and Miriam. See Song of Songs 6:10 “Who is she that sees forth like the dawn…? And psalm 110:3 “…the womb before the dawn…”.

[29] Catherine Brown Tkacz. “Esther, Jesus, and Psalm 22”, 721-22.

[30] Psalm 22:20-21a: “Deliver, O God, my soul from the sword: my only one from the hand of the dog.

Save me from the lion's mouth;…”

[31] Babylonian Tamud, Megillah 15b

[32] Zohar 1:6b

[33]  Genesis 49:9

[34] Ulmer Psalm 22 in Pesiqta Rabbati: The Suffering of the Jewish Messiah and Jesus, 109-110

[35] Zohar 1:6b

[36] Ulmer Psalm 22 in Pesiqta Rabbati: The Suffering of the Jewish Messiah and Jesus, 109

[37] Likutey Moharan 36

[38]such as Job 17:5; Proverbs 18:24 and 19:4; Jeremiah 3:1

[39] 2 Sam.15.

[40] 2 Sam.14. The Douay Rheims says in Isaiah 51:38 : “They shall roar together like lions, they shall shake their manes like young lions.”

[41] That the Lamenter of Psalm 22 is seen under the metaphor of a Lion is found in the use of the word roaring in Psalm 22:1.

[42] 2 Sam.18.

[43] Babylonian Talmud:Sanhedrin 96a and Zohar 16b

[44] Menn No Ordinary Lament: Relecture and the Identity  of the Distressed in Psalm 22, 303.

Bibliography

Altes,Liesbeth Korthals, “A Theory of Ethical Reading” Theology and Literature: Rethinking                   Reader Responsibility Palgrave Macmillan; Gordonsville VA, USA, 2006.

Carey, Holly J. Jesus' Cry From the Cross. London, GB: T & T Clark International, 2009.

Croft, Steven J. L. Identity of the Individual in the Psalms. London, GB: Sheffield Academic        Press, 1987.

Hellner-Eshed,Melila. A River Flows from Eden: The Language of Mystical Experience in the        Zohar, (California; Standford University Press; 2009).

Levinas, Emmanuel. In the Time of the Nations London, Athlone Press, 1994.

Matt, Daniel Chanan. The Zohar, volume 1. Vol. 1. Stanford University Press, 2004.

Menn, Esther M. "No ordinary lament: Relecture and the Identity of the Distressed in Psalm 22."             Harvard Theological Review 93, no. 04 (2000): 301-341.

Mykoff, Moshe (trans), Rebbe Nachman of Breslov Likutey Moharan Vol.5 (lessons 33-48) ;             Jerusalem/New York; Breslov Research Institute; 1997.

Novick, Leah (Rabbi)  On the Wings of Shekhinah: Rediscovering Judaism's Divine Feminine        (Wheaton; Quest Books; 2008),64-65.

Smith, Chanani Haran. Tuning the Soul: Music as a Spiritual Process in the Teachings of Rabbi     Nahman of Bratzlav IJS Studies in Judaica; Volume 10; Brill Academic Publishers;      Boston; 2009.

Starrett, Yehoshua (Rabbi). ESTHER A Breslov Commentary on the Megillah  Jerusalem/New      York; Breslov Research Institute;1992.

Tkacz, Catherine Brown. “Esther, Jesus, and Psalm 22”. The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Oct        2008; 70(4), 709-728.

Ulmer, Rivka. "Psalm 22 in Pesiqta Rabbati: The Suffering of the Jewish Messiah and Jesus."       The Jewish Jesus: Revelation, Reflection, Reclamation (2011): 106-128.

Ulmer, Rivka. "The Contours of the Messiah in Pesiqta Rabbati." Harvard Theological Review     106, no. 02 (2013): 115-144.