The Book of Psalms contains one hundred and fifty individual psalms. Each psalm has an individual message that morphs when read as part of a collection. What does reading the Book of Psalms teach us about reading Scripture in general?
In Interpreting the Psalms: An Exegetical Handbook (p. 57) Mark D. Furtado asks, “Are the psalms a random anthology of prayers and praises or an intentional collection with a clear purpose and unified message?”
I want to answer: both. I could sit down with Psalm 1, read it, and hear its message loud and clear without the other one hundred and forty-nine psalms. I would know that the blessed/happy person doesn’t do what the wicked do, but meditates on Torah receiving transformation from this practice. I would know that this immersion in Scripture stabilizes me “like a tree planted by streams of water (v. 3a, NIV)” while the wicked “…are like chaff that the wind blows away (v. 4a, NIV).” I would learn that YHWH watches over the righteous, but that the wicked do not have this protection.
As soon as I read Psalm 1 next to Psalm 2 the meaning doesn’t morph drastically, but the context changes a bit. I realize that part of being righteous rather than wicked is submitting to God’s chosen King, his Son, the ruler over the nations. Together the definition of the righteous and that of the wicked change. Yes, Torah matters, but Torah without obedience to God’s anointed one puts me back on the side of the wicked. I wouldn’t know this without the canonized message of the collection.
What does this mean for our reading of Scripture?
Is there a sense in which (like the psalms) we can read the Gospel of Matthew alone, then the Gospel of Mark alone, then the Gospels of Luke and John alone, but when we put them together we should anticipate a fuller, more complex message? I hear many speak of giving each book its own voice, paying attention to “authorial intent,” and the like. There are others who emphasize the message of these various works in the context of the canon. Does it need to be either-or?
Does reading the psalms both individually and together establish a model for how to read Scripture as a whole? If so, how? If not, why not?
the archives near Emmaus 
You should check out Robert Cole’s forthcoming book ‘Introducing the Psalter:The Unity and Message of Psalms 1-2’. He sees Ps 1-2 as a unit that introduces the Psalter as a whole, and the “blessed man” in Ps 1 is seen as the anointed one (messiah) of Ps 2. Whether you agree or not, his reading of the Psalter is fascinating and many of his conclusions are quite convincing.
As to your question, I would argue that the entire TANAK ought to be read as one work, and yet each part does maintain meaning. At the least, I think the three books that comprise TANAK ought to be taken as whole works. There is a good bit of textual, as well as thematic, evidence to suggest this as a proper reading. I would like to argue the same for the NT, but I have not as yet found enough evidence to persuade me. I would say each Gospel has its own meaning/purpose, yet obviously all these put together create a fuller picture. Certainly though Luke/Acts ought to be read in light of each other.
alien
Thank you for the recommendation. I will look into that book. Another book that peaked my interest was G. Wenham’s new book on the Psalms as Torah.
I think Brevard Childs is one person who tried to make the leap from canonical readings of the OT to canonical readings of the NT. His book on the Pauline corpus was very interesting and well-argued.
re: “Does reading the psalms both individually and together establish a model for how to read Scripture as a whole? If so, how?”
If you are reading composite texts that display evidence of being deliberately shaped by a composer(s)–e.g., strategic placement/juxtaposition, linkage by keywords and/or content, coordination with other texts by means of quotation and/or allusion, editorial updating in light of a new situation–why then, I’d say yes, the Psalter could serve as a model 🙂
One obvious example: reading individual minor prophets vs. reading the Book of the 12 as an editorially-coordinated corpus of prophetic literature.
If the Psalms are a unity, then I think we also need to take the inscriptions seriously as “road signs” for our way through the Psalter. Check out Frederick J. Gaiser’s article, “The David of Psalm 51: Reading Psalm 51 in Light of Psalm 50,” Word & World 23, no. 4 (2003): 385-386 for an example of this.
Michael
Indeed, the Book of the Twelve is another series of works turned into a work that could be discussed the same way!
Ryan
Thanks, I will try to find that article!