Psalm 132: Zion’s Well-Being 79 connection between the durability of the Davidic rule and the election, forever, of Zion (13). V In Psalm 132 the community of Zion seeks the favour of YHWH on behalf of Zion’s welfare; it does so by acts and by words. One has the impression that the words are highly important. Yet, obviously, the psalm has been composed for a ritual event. The shape of this event can be deduced from the temporal structure of the first part of the text. In v. 10 David is distinguished from the ‘anointed one’, the present king. So, evidently, the prayer ‘in favour of David’ (v. 1) was spoken after David’s reign (14). Words of David are quoted in vv. 3-5. This quotation is followed by a statement which is clearly not its continuation and is not announced as a new quotation either. Since elsewhere in the psalm all quotative statements have some form of introduction (vv. 2.11a.13), the statement in v. 6 is apparently, from a temporal point of view, on one level with the prayers in vv. 1 and 8-10. So, for the audience of the psalm, this statement concerned a present situation and YHWH’s ‘dwelling place’, in v. 7, must be Zion indeed. After the quotation in vv. 3-5, however, ‘Fields of Jaar’, as a designation of Kiriath-Jearim or its vicinity, is apt to suggest David’s time as well. From Kiriath-Jearim (1 Chr 13,6; cf. 1 Sam 7,1) (15), on David’s initiative, the ark was ‘brought up’ to Jerusalem. The assumption that in our text it is the ark which was ‘found’ in the ‘Fields of Jaar’ is confirmed by v. 8. ‘Ephrathah’ is a variant form of Ephrath (16). It is likely here to refer to the area in which the village of Ephrathah was situated as well as Bethlehem Ephrathah (17). It is quite plausible that in this neighbourhood one might have learned that the ark was in Kiriath-Jearim. The place was part of the same region (cf. 1 Chr 2,50). Now how could, to the audience of the psalm, the statement of v. 6 be present and past at the same time? I think the answer can only be that the words belong to an act presenting a past event, which act must have been then a dramatic ritual. This also answers the question why in v. 6 the ark is not mentioned: it is the centre of the ritual and so all eyes are upon it (18). The (13) In Ps 132 YHWH’s favour to David presupposes the election of Zion. In the Deuteronomistic history, however, it is an election in itself (see 1 Sam 16,3.10.12; 2 Sam 6,21; 1 Kgs 11,34), which even precedes the choice of Jerusalem (1 Kgs 8,16). The mention of Jerusalem in 1 Kgs 11,13.32 seems to originate from the idea, represented by the psalm, that YHWH’s favour to David and Jerusalem’s election belong together essentially. (14) The prayers in Ps 132 may have been recited by the king himself; see esp. Ps 2,7; 84,9-10. Cf. Th. BOOIJ, “Psalm lxxxiv, a Prayer of the Anointed”, VT 44 (1994) 433-441. (15) The text handed down in 1 Chr 13,6 is to be preferred to that of 2 Sam 6,2. See S.R. DRIVER, Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel (Oxford 21913) 265-266. (16) Cf. H. BAUER – P. LEANDER, Historische Grammatik der hebräischen Sprache des Alten Testamentes (Halle 1922) 528s.t. (17) See Gen 35,16.19 (in v. 19 the concluding words are clearly a gloss); 1 Sam 10,2; 17,12; Jer 31,15; Mic 5,1; 1 Chr 2,19.50-51; 4,4. Cf. DELITZSCH, Psalmen, 812; J. BLENKINSOPP, “Kiriath-Jearim and the Ark”, JBL 88 (1969) 153-156. (18) A similar phenomenon may occur where no ritual is to be supposed; see Ps