Questions posed to God in the ’Andǝmta Commentary of Psalms

This study aims to discover how the ’Andəmta Commentary of Psalms (ACP) receives questions posed to God in the context of grief and suffering. Previous studies have dealt with the cries of the psalmist from various vantage points, but not from the perspectives of Ethiopic literature. This study fills this academic lacuna by unveiling the features of the psalmist’s questions in the Ethiopic literature, specifically in the ACP.

Questions of the psalmist in other selected Ethiopic psalmic literature (Yäliqwəntu Tərəgum or the Scholars’ Translation, Psalms of Christ by ‘Abä Bähəri, Psalms of Christ in Mäkəbebä Ṩälot, and Psalms of St. Mary in Mäkəbebä Ṩälot) and selected patristic commentaries (Diodore’s Commentary on the Psalms, John Chrysostom’s Commentary on the Psalms and Theodore of Mopsuestia’s Commentary on the Psalms) are included in this study.

After identifying, translating, and analysing thirty-one questions in the ACP, this study pinpoints three trends that describe the features of the questions in the ACP. First, these questions are set in various historical settings. Second, the figurative language in the questions is interpreted non-literally. Third, the ACP amplifies these questions.

These features are also traceable in the Amharic column of the Scholars’ Translation. The questions in this column display significant consistency with the comment section of the ACP. Corresponding to the questions in the ACP, the Psalms of Christ and the Psalms of St. Mary also present the questions of the psalmist. This indicates that presenting the suffering tone of the psalmist without hiding its interrogative tone is well-rooted not only in the ACP but also in the selected Ethiopic psalmic material.

The selected patristic literature also exhibits similarities with the features of the psalmist by framing the questions in historical settings and interpreting figurative language non-literally. Therefore, in line with previous research conducted by Roger Cowley, Kirsten Stoffregen Pedersen and Daniel Assefa, this study points out that the ACP stands in continuity with the Antiochene tradition of interpretation.

Yet, the ACP is different from the selected patristic commentaries because it consistently extends the questions of the psalmist. Unlike the patristic commentaries, the ACP does not rationalize the suffering of the psalmist by emphasizing the righteousness of God or the sinfulness of the psalmist. Instead, it highlights the interrogative tone of the psalmist in an apparent motivation of the addressee of the question, God. This feature highlights the Ethiopian flavour in the ACP. The ACP commentators teach the present Christian faith community to side with those who suffer and to ask their questions to God.