Psalm 3 → 120
Reasoning: 10304 Output: 3570 Total: 13874
Argument
Here are ways to argue that Psalm 120 “logically follows” Psalm 3, drawing on Hebrew form, vocabulary, imagery, and life-setting. Hard verbal/formulaic ties - The same call–answer line, almost verbatim: - Ps 3:5 קוֹלִי אֶל־יְהוָה אֶקְרָא וַיַּעֲנֵנִי מֵהַר קׇדְשׁוֹ - Ps 120:1 אֶל־יְהוָה … קָרָאתִי וַיַּעֲנֵנִי Identical verb pair קרא/ויענני with the same prepositional frame אֶל־יְהוָה (and 1cs suffix in ויענני). Psalm 3 supplies the place of the answer (“from his holy hill”), Psalm 120 supplies the place of the call (“in my distress”). Together they form a neat antiphonal couplet: “From my distress I called; from his holy hill he answered.” - Same root for “distress/oppression”: Ps 3:2 מָה־רַבּוּ צָרָי “how many are my adversaries” (root צרר = oppress); Ps 120:1 בַצָּרָתָה לִי “in my distress” (same root). Different forms, same semantic core: the psalmist is “in the narrow place” and under “narrowers.” Recurring lexemes and placement - Repetition of רב “many/much” around נֶפֶשׁ: - Ps 3 opens with triple רב: מָה־רַבּוּ … רַבִּים קָמִים … רַבִּים אֹמְרִים לְנַפְשִׁי. - Ps 120 closes with רַבַּת שָׁכְנָה־לָּהּ נַפְשִׁי. Both psalms cluster the רב–“many/much” vocabulary right next to נַפְשִׁי “my soul,” forming a pointed echo across the two. - The same direct form נַפְשִׁי appears in both in pivotal petitions: Ps 3:3 לְנַפְשִׁי; Ps 120:2,6 הַצִּילָה נַפְשִׁי … רַבַּת שָׁכְנָה־לָּהּ נַפְשִׁי. Speech-as-weapon and mouth-judgment - In Ps 3 the threat is verbal: “Many are saying to my soul, ‘There is no salvation for him in God’” (3:3). In Ps 120 the problem is made explicit: “lying lips … deceitful tongue” (120:2–3). Psalm 120 reads like a focused reply to the taunt in Psalm 3. - Both psalms target the “mouth” of the wicked for judgment: - Ps 3:8 “You shattered the teeth of the wicked” (שִׁנֵּי רְשָׁעִים שִׁבַּרְתָּ) – mouth imagery. - Ps 120:3–4 “What shall be given to you, deceitful tongue? Sharp arrows of a warrior with coals of broom” – retribution aimed at the lying tongue. Teeth vs. tongue is a tight thematic rhyme. - The verbs of speech cluster in both: Ps 3 has אֹמְרִים (“are saying”); Ps 120 has שְׂפַת־שֶׁקֶר, לָשׁוֹן רְמִיָּה, אֲדַבֵּר. War–peace polarity within conflict - Ps 3 is overtly military: צָרַי “adversaries,” אֹיְבַי “enemies,” מָגֵן “shield,” רִבְבוֹת עָם “myriads of people,” קוּמָה יְהוָה “Arise, O YHWH.” - Ps 120 answers with the war/peace contrast: “I am peace … they are for war” (אֲנִי־שָׁלוֹם … הֵמָּה לַמִּלְחָמָה), and weaponry (“sharp arrows”). Shield in Ps 3 vs. arrows in Ps 120 is a natural martial pairing. Spatial and life-setting progression - Both psalms presuppose displacement: - Ps 3 superscription: בְּבָרְחוֹ … מִפְּנֵי אַבְשָׁלוֹם – David “on the run.” - Ps 120:5–6: גַּרְתִּי מֶשֶׁךְ, שָׁכַנְתִּי עִם־אָהֳלֵי קֵדָר – life among far-off, hostile groups. Even if Meshech/Kedar are hyperbolic poles (north/south), it is a poetic way of saying “exiled among warlike outsiders,” which fits the aftermath of flight. - Surrounding/enviromental pressure in both: - Ps 3:7 סָבִיב שָׁתוּ עָלַי “they have set themselves around me.” - Ps 120:5–6 “I have sojourned … I have dwelt with the tents of Kedar.” From being surrounded by enemies to actually living among them. - Zion trajectory: Ps 3:5 “He answered me from his holy hill” (מֵהַר קָדְשׁוֹ) points to Zion as the locus of help. Ps 120 is the first “Song of Ascents” (שִׁיר הַמַּעֲלוֹת), i.e., the collection associated with going up to Zion. Editorially, Ps 120 can be read as the next move: after assurance “from his holy hill” (Ps 3), the pilgrim in exile begins the ascent sequence back toward that hill. Structuring and stylistic links - Both open with musical superscriptions that mark function: Ps 3 מִזְמוֹר לְדָוִד; Ps 120 שִׁיר הַמַּעֲלוֹת. This shift from a personal crisis-psalm to the liturgical “Ascents” signals a move from private deliverance to communal pilgrimage, which suits the closing of Ps 3:9 “Your blessing upon your people” and the peace-seeking arc of the Ascents (cf. Ps 122). - First-person focus maintained: Ps 3 emphasizes אֲנִי שָׁכַבְתִּי … הֵקִיצוֹתִי; Ps 120 highlights אֲנִי־שָׁלוֹם. In both, the “I” stands calm within hostility (sleep in Ps 3; peace stance in Ps 120). Idea-level continuity - Salvation/deliverance motif runs straight through: - Ps 3 denies and then asserts ישועה: “There is no salvation for him in God” versus “Salvation belongs to YHWH.” - Ps 120 replaces ישע with נצל but keeps the plea: הַצִּילָה נַפְשִׁי “Deliver my soul.” - Communal horizon: Ps 3 ends “Your blessing upon your people.” The Ascents will repeatedly aim at “peace for Jerusalem/Israel.” Ps 120 already introduces שָׁלוֹם, setting up that destination. A narrativized reading that links the two - Stage 1 (Ps 3): Amid Absalom’s revolt, the psalmist is encircled by hostile speech denying God’s help. He cries to YHWH and is answered “from his holy hill,” sleeps safely, and calls for God to break the hostile mouth. - Stage 2 (Ps 120): Still away from Zion, he now names the deeper cause of the revolt—deceitful tongues—and laments a prolonged sojourn among warlike outsiders (Meshech/Kedar). He remains “for peace” and resumes the pilgrim movement that the heading “Song of Ascents” signals, back toward the hill that answered him. Bottom line - The tightest anchors are the identical call–answer formula with the same verbs and prepositional frame, the shared צר root, the רב…נפשי collocation, and the coordinated mouth/war imagery (teeth broken vs. tongue pierced). Add to that the spatial logic (holy hill → Songs of Ascents), and Psalm 120 reads naturally as the next step after Psalm 3: from being saved amid hostile claims to naming and seeking redress for deceit, and beginning the ascent back to Zion and its peace.
Evaluation
No evaluation has been recorded for this pair yet.
Prompt
Consider Psalm 3 and Psalm 120 (reproduced below). What arguments could you make to justify that Psalm 120 logically follows on from Psalm 3? Consider stylistic similarities, similarities of form, similarities of vocab or ideas, shared roots (if you're doing the search in Hebrew), connections to sequences of events common in ancient Israelite life, mythology or history shared by the two psalms.
Rarer words are more significant than commoner words. Identical forms are more significant than similar forms. The same word class is more significant than different word classes formed from the same root. Identical roots are more significant than suppletive roots.
Psalm 3:
Psalm 3
1. מִזְמ֥וֹר
לְדָוִ֑ד
בְּ֝בָרְח֗וֹ
מִפְּנֵ֤י ׀
אַבְשָׁל֬וֹם
בְּנֽוֹ׃
2. יְ֭הוָה
מָֽה־
רַבּ֣וּ
צָרָ֑י
רַ֝בִּ֗ים
קָמִ֥ים
עָלָֽי׃
3. רַבִּים֮
אֹמְרִ֢ים
לְנַ֫פְשִׁ֥י
אֵ֤ין
יְֽשׁוּעָ֓תָה
לּ֬וֹ
בֵֽאלֹהִ֬ים
סֶֽלָה׃
4. וְאַתָּ֣ה
יְ֭הוָה
מָגֵ֣ן
בַּעֲדִ֑י
כְּ֝בוֹדִ֗י
וּמֵרִ֥ים
רֹאשִֽׁtי׃
5. ק֖dוֹלִי
אֶל־
יְהוָ֣ה
אֶקְרָ֑א
וַיַּֽעֲנֵ֨נִי
מֵהַ֖ר
קָדְשׁ֣וֹ
סֶֽלָה׃
6. אֲנִ֥י
שָׁכַ֗בְתִּי
וָֽאִ֫ישָׁ֥נָה
הֱקִיצ֑וֹתִי
כִּ֖י
יְהוָ֣ה
יִסְמְכֵֽנִי׃
7. לֹֽא־
אִ֭ירָא
מֵרִבְב֥וֹת
עָ֑ם
אֲשֶׁ֥ר
סָ֝בִ֗יב
שָׁ֣תוּ
עָלָֽtי׃
8. ק֘וּמָ֤ה
יְהוָ֨ה ׀
הוֹשִׁ֘יעֵ֤נִי
אֱלֹהַ֗י
כִּֽי־
הִכִּ֣יתָ
אֶת־
כָּל־
אֹיְבַ֣י
לֶ֑חִי
שִׁנֵּ֖י
רְשָׁעִ֣ים
שִׁבַּֽרְתָּ׃
9. לַיהוָ֥ה
הַיְשׁוּעָ֑ה
עַֽל־
עַמְּךָ֖
בִרְכָתֶ֣ךָ
סֶּֽלָה׃
Psalm 120:
Psalm 120
1. שִׁ֗יר
הַֽמַּ֫עֲל֥וֹת
אֶל־
יְ֭הוָה
בַּצָּרָ֣תָה
לִּ֑י
קָ֝רָ֗אתִי
וַֽיַּעֲנֵֽנִי׃
2. יְֽהוָ֗ה
הַצִּ֣ילָה
נַ֭פְשִׁי
מִשְּׂפַת־
שֶׁ֑קֶר
מִלָּשׁ֥וֹן
רְמִיָּֽה׃
3. מַה־
יִּתֵּ֣ן
לְ֭ךָ
וּמַה־
יֹּסִ֥יף
לָ֗ךְ
לָשׁ֥וֹן
רְמִיָּֽה׃
4. חִצֵּ֣י
גִבּ֣וֹר
שְׁנוּנִ֑ים
עִ֝֗ם
גַּחֲלֵ֥י
רְתָמִֽים׃
5. אֽוֹיָה־
לִ֭י
כִּי־
גַ֣רְתִּי
מֶ֑שֶׁךְ
שָׁ֝כַ֗נְתִּי
עִֽם־
אָהֳלֵ֥י
קֵדָֽר׃
6. רַ֭בַּת
שָֽׁכְנָה־
לָּ֣הּ
נַפְשִׁ֑י
עִ֝֗ם
שׂוֹנֵ֥א
שָׁלֽוֹם׃
7. אֲֽנִי־
שָׁ֭לוֹם
וְכִ֣י
אֲדַבֵּ֑ר
הֵ֝֗מָּה
לַמִּלְחָמָֽה׃