LXX. Yet it is also imprecise to refer to “the” Septuagint because it did not exist as a single entity, but as a Gk. tradition composed of multiple revisions. It is more accurate, therefore, to speak of the church’s use of “Israel’s Scriptures,” which does not impose modern canonical constraints—whether Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox—and takes into consideration the multiple text traditions available at the time in their Heb., Aram., and Gk. forms. With that said, I will use the OT/NT designations because of convention and convenience. While this book primarily appeals to the Protestant canon, which is identical to the Hebrew canon except for the ordering of certain books, it will refer to the Gk. tradition at times. This study follows the numbering of the Hebrew Psalter, which consists of 150 psalms.
4. For this basic view, see Longenecker, Exegesis, 197; Snodgrass, “Use of the Old Testament,” 223.
5. Silva, “New Testament Use,” 164.
6. Köstenberger and Patterson, Invitation, 195.
7. Snodgrass, “Use of the Old Testament,” 223.
8. This is also defended in Longenecker, Exegesis, 198.
9. I admit the tenuousness of such lists because it is not always easy to decide whether a NT passage quotes or alludes to an OT one; further, quotations may, at times, be duplicates within the OT itself, making it difficult to determine which book is being cited.
10. McCartney, “Hermeneutics,” para. 7.
11. Reardon, Christ, 61.
12. For consistency, “Psalms” refers to the Psalter (the book of Psalms), and “psalms” refers generally to individual psalms without reference to its number, and is understood from the context (e.g., “the psalm recalls the exodus”).
13. Bullock, Encountering, 46; McCann, Theological, 163; Longman, How to Read Psalms, 65; Just, “Quotations.”
14. Reardon, Christ, xvi.
15. Tesh and Zorn, Psalms, 71.
16. Belcher, Messiah, 30; Tesh and Zorn, Psalms, 70. I recommend Belcher’s brief history of interpretation on the development of the term “messianic” in relation to Psalms (Messiah, 21–30).
17. The list is taken from Bullock, Encountering, 178. Bullock has a fine exegetical analysis of the development of messianism in the royal psalms (pp. 177–86).
18. Ibid., 182.
19. Belcher, Messiah, 118.
20. On the postexilic shaping of the Psalter, see deClaissé-Walford, Introduction, 45–57. Although, the exilic community also played a role in shaping the Psalter.
21. Bullock, Encountering, 182.
22. Belcher, Messiah, 25.
23. Childs, Introduction, 517.
24. Tesh and Zorn, Psalms, 73.
25. Authorship of the so-called “Davidic psalms” is notoriously difficult. The Heb. preposition le, often translated “of” in Eng., which is found in the superscriptions of many psalms, has a range of possible meanings—much like the Eng. counterpart. It is commonly understood to indicate authorship, as in “by David,” and this may well be the case; but this cannot be established from the preposition itself, much less the superscripts of the psalms, which were added later in the Psalter’s composition history. It can also indicate possession (“belonging to”), most likely belonging to a group of psalms (e.g., “of the sons of Korah”). The preposition can also indicate relationship (“about” or “pertaining to”). Or, it can mean “for” someone (i.e., on behalf of, in dedication to, or at the direction of). Thus, “of David” conveys the idea of being related to David in some way. The meaning of the psalms does not depend on the precise identification of their author; therefore, I will refer to the “David” of the Psalter out of convenience, and do not intend a rigid statement of authorship. For this issue, see Tesh and Zorn, Psalms, 45–46, 49–50; deClaissé-Walford, Introduction, 145–55; Longman, How to Read Psalms, 40–42. Aside from “of” as possibly indicating authorship, one should notice the intentional ambiguity of Psalms of Christ, the title of this book.
26. Belcher, Messiah, 25.
27. Green, “Christ’s Shepherd,” 36.
28. Collett, “Christology,” 393.
29. Bullock, Encountering, 184.
30. Childs, Introduction, 515–16.
31. Belcher, Messiah, 29. Green estimates the number of psalms that some scholars deem traditionally “messianic” to be less than fifteen (“Christ’s Shepherd,” 34).
32. Green, “Christ’s Shepherd,” 38.
33. Mitchell, Message. For a more concise version of Mitchell’s thesis, see Mitchell, “Remember David,” 528–29.
34. Green, “Christ’s Shepherd,” 35.
35. Ibid., 36.
36. Although John’s christological use of the Prophets and the Psalms should not be ignored. See Brendsel, “Isaiah”; Daly-Denton, David; Manning, Echoes.
37. Hays, Reading Backwards, 14.
