82 Th. Booij Sukkoth. We are told that at the festival in the seventh month the elders of Israel came by order of the king ‘to bring up’ (twl[hl) the ark of the covenant of YHWH, that is, bring it to its place in YHWH’s house (vv. 1-6; cf. vv. 65-66). The idea that in pre-exilic times, on certain occasions, the ark was brought solemnly to the temple has been discredited somewhat by the imaginative theories of twentieth-century scholars. Nevertheless, in my opinion, it is the only satisfactory explanation of v. 8 in our text and of a few more passages in the psalms (see Pss 24; 47; 68). The confirmation of Zion’s election in vv. 13- 14 explains the entrance of the ark as a sign of that election. So Psalm 132 may be called an introit-song. Since the name Zion, as we saw, stands for Jerusalem, it can be assumed that the psalm was recited at the city gate (30). As a ‘Song of Ascent’ (twl[mh ryv, v. 1), our text belongs to a collection comprising Psalms 120–134. At the festival of Sukkoth these texts were recited, in my view, as procession songs (31). Since in the main their origin is clearly late, Ps 132 must have been brought into use again after the exile; and in all likelihood it was the introit-song once more. Why had the introit-song to be a pre-exilic text? And why was Psalm 132 chosen instead of, for example, Psalm 24? I think the reason is that our text held a promise in matters — the election of Zion, the Davidic reign — that remained to be important to the religious community (32). How exactly the text was understood in post-exilic times is hard to decide. The passage of vv. 6-9, mentioning the ark in v. 8, may have been taken as an echo from David’s time; or perhaps there was hope that the ark would come back to Zion some day (cf. 2 Macc 2,4-8). In v. 10 the ‘anointed one’ may have been understood to be the high priest (cf. eg. Lev 6,15); or the voice of a former king, possibly Solomon, was heard there (cf. 2 Chr 6,41-42). The really important thing was no doubt that the words of the royal psalm reminded God of his promises of old to Israel’s faithful (33). Lomanstraat 32-B TH. BOOIJ 1075 RC Amsterdam Nederlands (30) In vv. 19-20 of post-exilic Ps 118 the reference is also to the city gate, in all probability (cf. Isa 26,1-2). See D. HAMIDOVI´ , “‘Les portes de justice’ et ‘la porte de C YHWH’ dans le Psaume 118,19-20”, Bib 81 (2000) 542-550. In Ps 132 vv. 6-7 do not mean to suggest that, in the cultic imagination, the ark was taken there directly from Kiriath- Jearim. It is told in 2 Sam 6,10 that David lodged the ark in the house of Obed-Edom the Gittite before taking it to the city of David. This procedure is justified by an aetiological legend (see v. 8b); its historicity, however, is argued by the designation ‘Gittite’ and the logic of David’s choice (cf. 2 Sam 15,18). The description of the procession from Obed- Edom’s house has, remarkably, a statement (v. 15) which by its terminology recalls Ps 47,6. S. MOWINCKEL, The Psalms in Israel’s Worship (Oxford 1962) I, 171, thinks that ark processions may have started from “a place called the house of Obed Edom”. (31) See Isa 30,29; Ps 134,1; Mishnah Sukkah 5,1-4. (32) Cf. Jer 23,5; Ezek 34,23-24; Zech 1,17; 2,16; 3,2; 9,9-10; Neh 1,9. (33) Cf. PsSal 17,4.21; Acts 1,6.