Encyclopaedia Biblica/Psalms (Book)

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search




    • Title (1).
    • Traditional authorship (2).
    • Number of psalms (3).
    • Psalter a temple handbook ? (4).
    • Necessary qualification (5).
    • The 'I' psalms ( 6 ; cp also 37).
    • Steps in redaction: five books (7; cp also 38).
    • Dates of collections (8 ; final redaction, 9).
    • Confirmations of result so far (9)
    • Older poems included ? (10).
    • Books 1 and 2 (11).
    • Book 1 not pre-exilic (12).
    • Date of 2nd Davidic collection ( 13).
    • Why called Davidic (14).
    • Technical terms in titles (15 ; cp 25, 45).
    • Use of psalms in temple (16).
    • Survey of recent criticism (17-21).
    • On Maccabaean psalms (18).
    • On pre-exilic psalms ( 19).
    • Robertson Smith ( 20).
    • W. Sanday ( 21).
    • Preliminaries (22) :
      • i. Ochus theory (23).
      • ii. Gray on royal psalms (24 ; cp 29-34).
      • iii. Psalm-headings (25-26).
    • Results for the guilds of singers (27).
    • Historical background of specimen psalms (28).
    • Royal psalms reconsidered (29-34) :
      • i. Psalms 2, 18, 110 (29).
      • ii. Psalms 20-21 (30).
      • iii. Psalms 61 and 63 (31).
      • iv. Psalms 896 and 132 (32).
      • v. Psalms 45, 72, 101 (33).
    • Result (34).
    • Psalms of immortality (35-36).
    • Ideas of Psalter varied (37).
    • Chronology of psalms (38) :
      • i. Phraseological argument (39).
      • ii. Linguistic argument (40).
      • iii. Duhm's argument from Psalter of Solomon ( 41).
        • Background of Psalter of Solomon ; name (42).
      • iv. Imitative psalms (43).
      • v. Psalm composition (44).
    • Historical references in titles (45).
    • Psalm-titles in versions (46).
    • Poetical form (47).
    • Ancient versions (48).
  • Bibliography (49).


1. Title.[edit]

The Book of Psalms or the Psalter, the first book of Hagiographa in the Hebrew Bible, 1 bears the Hebrew title cVnn, tehillim, or c ^n nED, sepher tillim, the 'book of hymns' or rather 'songs of praise'. 2 The singular nWtn, tehillah, is properly the infinitive or nomen verbi of VVn, hillel, a verb employed in the technical language of the temple service for the execution of a jubilant song of praise to the accompaniment of music and the blare of the priestly trumpets (1 Ch. 16:4-5, 25:3, 2 Ch. 5:12-13). The name is not therefore equally applicable to all psalms, and in the later Jewish ritual the synonym hallel specially designates two series of psalms, 113-118 and 146-150, of which the former was sung at the three great feasts, the encaenia, and the new moon, and the latter at the daily morning prayer (see HALLEL). That the whole book is named 'praises' is clearly due to the fact that it was the manual of the temple service of song, in which praise was the leading feature. For an individual psalm, however, the usual name is mizmor (7lc1a ; only in titles of psalms [except in Ecclus. 49:1]), 3 which is applicable to any piece designed to be sung to a musical accompaniment. Of this word, i/ aX/xjy [psalmos], 'psalm', is a translation, and in the Greek Bible the whole book is called 'Psalms' (\f/a\/j.oi [psalmoi]) or 'Psalter' (^aXr-fipiov [psalterion]). 4 The title Psalms (\j/a\fj.oi) or Book of Psalms (j3t/3\os \j/a\fj.Qv) is used in the NT (Lk. 20:42, 24:44 ; Acts 1:20) ; but in Heb. 4:7 we find another title, namely 'David'.

1 [The part of this article signed W. R. S. was originally written in 1886. It was, however, virtually re-indorsed in 1892 in the seventh of the Lectures on Biblical Criticism now so often referred to as OTJC(2), in which, as the author states, he has incorporated the main conclusions of his article. Much water has flowed under the bridge since 1892, and the progress of the critical study of other books cannot but react on that of the Psalms. No better starting-point, however, for the study of this great book could be had than the sketch here adopted as the introduction to our article ; and if we decline to hold it certain that a renewed investigation of the Psalter from the point of view enforced upon us by the present circumstances of criticism and philology would have led the writer to the same conclusions as in 1886, no disparagement to an enthusiastically admired comrade can be intended by the scholar whose signature is appended to the larger part of the article.]

2 Hippol.,ed. Lag., 188 ; Eus. HE. 6:25:2; Epiph. Metis, et Pond. 23 ; Jerome's preface to Psalt. juxta Hebraeos.

3 [If the reading of the Cairo Hebrew text be correct, could be used of secular songs. But Halevy, mOT-]

  • Similarly in the Syriac Bible the title is mazmore.

2. Traditional authorship.[edit]

Hippolytus tells us that in his time most Christians said 'the Psalms of David', and believed the whole book to be his [and even Theodore of Mopsuestia accepted the Davidic authorship of the Psalter as a whole]. But this title and belief are both of Jewish origin. [Thus in 2 Ch. 29;30 David and Asaph appear to be combined as joint-authors of the Psalter, and] in 2 Macc. 2:13 'the [writings] of David' (TO. TOV AavfiS) means the Psalter. Besides, the title of the apocryphal 'Psalms of Solomon' implies that the previously existing Psalter was ascribed to David. [Whether, however, we must also assume that the psalms entitled in 1 ? were necessarily ascribed to king David, is questioned by Lagarde and B. Jacob, and the correctness of the reading inS may be strongly doubted, as also the reading of the title ncSt? 1 ?. See 12 (a) (b).] Jewish tradition does not make David the author of all the psalms ; but as he was regarded as the founder and legislator of the temple psalmody (1 Ch. , ut sup.; Ezra 3:10, Neh. 12:36, 12:45-46, Ecclus. 47:8-9), so also he was held to have completed and arranged the whole book, though according to Talmudic tradition 1 he incorporated psalms by ten other authors : Adam, Melchizedek, Abraham, Moses, Heman, Jeduthun, Asaph, and the three sons of Korah. [Cp Driver, lntrod.(^), 7-8 ; Neubauer, Studio. Biblica, 2:6-8. Another good authority on Jewish tradition - Dr. B. Jacob - writes thus : 'Not till quite late, according to the Midrash, did David take possession of the entire Psalter. In the second century the most important teachers of the Mishna still debate the questions whether all the psalms are by David (R. Meir), and whether they all refer to David (R. Elasar), or to the community (R. Joshua), who composed the Hallel, etc. (Pesahim, 117a). The Church fathers, too, in the earliest age protest against the erroneous opinion that David is the author of all the psalms, and seek for reasons why the whole Psalter is nevertheless named after him' (ZATW 16 [1896], i62-163).]

With this it agrees that the [Hebrew] titles of the psalms name no one later than Solomon, and even he is not recognised as a psalmodist by the most ancient tradition, that of LXX, which omits him from the title of Ps. 127 (LXX{R} inserts the name) 2 and makes Ps. 72 be written ei s Za\o[w]/ucoj [eis salo[oo]mon], i.e. , not by but of him.

The details of the tradition of authorship show considerable variation ; according to the Talmudic view Adam is author of the Sabbath psalm, 92, and Melchizedek of Ps. 110, whilst Abraham is identified with Ethan the Ezrahite (Ps. 89). According to older Jewish tradition attested by Origen,! Ps. 92 is by Moses, to whom are assigned Pss. 90-100 inclusive, according to a general rule that all anonymous pieces (avciriypaiftoi [anepigraphoi], D Oijv) are by the same hand with the nearest preceding psalm whose author is named ; and Ps. 110, which by its title is Davidic, seems to have been given to Melchizedek to avoid the dilemma of Mt. 22:41-42. Origen's rule accounts for all the psalms except 1 and 2, which were sometimes reckoned as one poem (Acts 13:33 in the Western text ; Origen, B. Berakhoth, 9b), and appear to have been ascribed to David (Acts 4:25). The opinion of Jerome (Praef. in Ps. Heb.) and other Christian writers that the collector of the Psalter was Ezra does not seem to rest on Jewish tradition.

1 The passages are collected in Kimhi's preface to his commentary on the Psalms, ed. Schiller-Szinessy, Cambridge, 1883.

2 [The significance of this fact is changed, if mSyo and r.7V are both corruptions of the same original. See 12.]

3. Number of psalms.[edit]

[The number of the psalms both in LXX and in MT is 150, though the mode of arriving at this number is different; LXX unites 9 and 10, 114 and 115, and divides 116 and 147; the apocryphal psalm at the end is not reckoned. The oldest Jewish tradition reckoned 147 psalms (cp Gen. 47:28) ; Pss. 9 and 10 are one, 70 and 71 are one, 114 and 115 are one, and 117 and 118:1-4 are one, whilst 118:5 begins a separate psalm (see, e.g. , the Vienna MS described by Ginsburg, Introd. 777). The inaccuracy of an arrangement which divides Pss. 9 and 10, 42 and 43 is manifest.]

4. Psalter - a temple handbook?[edit]

Whatever may be the value of the titles to individual psalms, there can be no question that the tradition that the Psalter was collected by David is not historical ; for no one doubts that [at any rate ] some of the psalms date from after the Babylonian exile. The truth that underlies the tradition is that the collection is essentially the hymn-book of the second temple, and it was there fore ascribed to David, because it was assumed, as we see clearly from Chronicles, that the order of worship in the second temple was the same as in the first, and had David as its father : as Moses completed the law of Israel for all time before the people entered Canaan, so David completed the theory and contents of the temple psalmody before the temple itself was built. When we thus understand its origin, the tradition becomes really instructive, and may be translated into a statement which throws light on several points connected with the book - the statement, namely, that the Psalter was (finally, at least) collected with a liturgical purpose. Thus, though the Psalms represent [according to the writer s earlier view] a great range of individual experience, they avoid such situations and expressions as are too unique to be used in acts of public devotion. Many of the psalms are doxologies or the like, expressly written for the temple ; others are made up of extracts from older poems in a way perfectly natural in a hymn-book, but otherwise hardly intelligible. Such ancient hymns as Ex. 15:1+ [cp EXODUS, BOOK OF, 6], Judg. 5, 1 S. 2:1-10 [cp SAMUEL, BOOKS OF, 3], are not included in the collection, though motives borrowed from them are embodied in more modern psalms ; the interest of the collector, we see, was not historical but liturgical. Again, the temple, Zion, the solemn feasts, are constantly kept in the foreground. All these points go to show that the collection was not only used but actually formed for use in the temple.

5. Necessary qualification.[edit]

[The preceding statement with regard to the object and use of the collection would probably have received from the original writer some qualification. Most critics would now admit that many of the psalms were probably never either used in the temple or intended for use in the temple. The synagogues were 'prayer-houses' like the temple, and it is difficult to believe that prayer did not include praise ; moreover, the 'missionary psalms' and the so-called 'Puritan psalms' had a special applicability to the Jews of the Dispersion (Che. OPs. 12 14 363; Duhm, Psalmen, Einl. x. ; Briggs, in Neva World, March 1900, 177). Duhm even thinks that many psalms can only have been used for private edification. At any rate, it is safer to call the Psalter the prayer-book and hymn-book of the (post-exilic) Jewish community 1 than to connect it as a whole too closely with the services in the temple. It is thus left open to suppose that many of the psalms were hymns of the Dispersion (see Roy), and at the same time to deny that the religious experiences are ever purely personal.

1 Opp. 2:514-515. ed. de la Rue; cp Hippol. ut supra; Jerome, Ep. CXL (ad Cyfr.), and Prof, in Mai.

6. 'I' of the psalms.[edit]

Prof. Robertson Smith, at a later date, qualified his original statement respecting 'individual religious experience', and the following passage (DTJC (-) 189, n.) deserves to be quoted.] 'Some recent writers go so far as to maintain that in all (or almost all) the psalms, the speaker is Israel, the church-nation personified', so that the 'I' and 'me' of the psalms throughout mean 'we', 'us', the community of God's grace and worship. So especially Smend in Stade's Zeitschrift, 8:49+ (1888). Few will be disposed to go so far as Smend [who has indeed since 1888 taken opportunities of qualifying his original position, and in his Lehrbuch der A T Rel-gesch. (2), 361, says that he is in essential agreement with Cheyne, Origin of the Psalter, 261+]. But the view that many psalms are spoken in the name of the community is no novelty, and can hardly be disputed. There is, of course, room for much difference of opinion as to the extent to which this method of interpreting the 'I' and 'me' of the psalms may be applied. Driver, Introd.(^) 366-367 [389-390] would confine it to a few psalms [but cp the fuller statement in ed. 6], while Cheyne (whose remarks on the bearing of the question on the use of the Psalter in the Christian Church will repay perusal) gives it a much larger range (Origin of the Psalter, 1891, Lecture vi.). [On this subject see further Schuurmans Stekhoven, ZATW 9 [1889], 131+; Budde, TLZ, May 14, 1892, col. 254 ; Beer, Individual- und Gemeinde-Psalmen (1894); Coblenz, Ueb. dasbetende Ick in den Psalmen (1897); H. Roy, Die Volksgemeinde u. die Gemeinde der Frommen im Psalter (1897); D. Leimdorfer, Das Psalter-ego in den Ich-Psalmen (1898), and Baethgen's commentary.]

[It is often said that the practice of those who prepare hymn-books for congregational Christian use is against Smend's view, hymns which were originally the expression of the inward experience of individuals in circumstances more or less peculiar to themselves being adapted to more general use by omissions, additions, and other large or small alterations. The comparison, however, is hazardous, the awakening of individual life in the Western nations since the introduction of Christianity having no parallel in the Semitic East. Those hymns in the OT which were traditionally supposed to be the effusions of individuals (1 S. 2:1-10, Is. 38:10-20 Jon. 2:2-9 [2:3-10]), turn out to be nothing of the kind, but simply expressions of the faith of the pious community of Israel. The same may on the whole be affirmed of the 'Psalms of Solomon'. The truth is, that the controversy as to the 'I' psalms is not so important as has been supposed. It is not a part of the larger question as to the date of the psalms, for the representation of a body of men as a single being is primitive ; 'I' psalms might, if the tone of thought and the social background permitted, be pre-exilic. Nor does it greatly affect the exegesis of the psalms, except indeed when by means of forced interpretations Duhm and B. Jacob endow the speakers of the psalms with a vigorous and almost self-assertive person ality. Between those who contend that the speaker of a psalm (or of a part of a psalm) is a representative or typical pious Israelite, and those who regard the speaker as the community itself personified, there is, exegetically, but a slight difference. And yet this difference is not to be wholly disregarded. A close study of the psalms, especially in connection with a keen textual criticism, will probably show the greater naturalness (from the point of view of Volkerpsychologie) of the latter way of accounting for the phenomena. Occasionally, of course, e.g., in 34:11 [34:12], 45:2 [45:1], 78:1-2, 106:4-5, there is no possible doubt that it is the poet himself who speaks ; but these passages are widely different from those about which somewhat too lively a dispute has arisen among critics of the Psalter. The evidence of the heading of Ps. 102 cannot rightly be brought against the view here recommended ; the 'afflicted one' ( 3J7) there spoken of is manifestly the pious community (cp njjj;, 61:3, 77:4).]

[The chief names on the other side 2 are those of Noldeke, B. Jacob, and Duhm. According to Noldeke (ZATW 20 [1900], 92-93), the 'I' psalms refer as a rule to the poet himself; this is based on the observation that in the songs in the Hebrew text of Ecclus. 51:2-12 and 51:13-29 it must be Ben Sira who speaks. 3 Very different is the view of B. Jacob (ZATW 17 [1897], 544+), who maintains that psalms were composed for the use of individuals who had some sacrificial rite to perform in the temple, as a means of deliverance from sickness, or as a thank-offering for recovery ; and goes so far as to define the Psalter (in opposition to Olshausen and many others) as 'ein Gemeinde-opfergesangbuch - das hat uns rt^O gelehrt, - ein Privat(opfer)-gebetbuch - das sollte TSin 1 ? zeigen'. To these we may add Duhm, who, as a commentator, represents the same tendency, and carries the individualising interpretation of the speakers of the psalms to an extreme. The objections to this view will appear to any student of Duhm's always clear and consistent, but too often strained, exegesis. See further, 16, 37.]

1 Olshausen (Psahnen, 1853) already gives this definition of the Psalter ; but he does not give a clear notion of the great Jewish community, which, though conscious of its unity (symbolised even by so apparently trifling a point as the turning of a worshipper towards Jerusalem even when away from the Holy Land), was nevertheless not merely Palestinian but scattered in many lands.

2 We do not mention Konig (Einl. 400), because he admits the representative character of most of the individuals who are the supposed speakers in the psalms. In Ps. 23, however, the speaker, he thinks, is not the collective community (Smend), but a fugitive, who is cut off from visits to the temple, like David, according to 1 Sam. 26:19. (But surely the speaker in this and parallel psalms is the company of faithful Israelites and diligent frequenters of the temple, who formed the kernel of the post-exilic Judaean community.)

3 This observation of Noldeke, however, is hardly self-evident so far as 51:2-12 is concerned.

7. Steps in redaction : five books.[edit]

The question now arises, Was the collection a single act, or is the Psalter made up of several older collections ? Here we have first to observe that in the Hebrew text the psalter is divided into five books, each of which closes with a doxology. The scheme of the whole is as follows : -

  • Book i., Pss. 1-41 : all these are ascribed to David except 1, 2, 10 (which is really part of 9), 33 (ascribed to David in LXX) ; doxology 41:13.
  • Book ii., Pss. 42-72 : of these 42-49 are ascribed to the Korahites (43 being part of 42), 50 to Asaph, 51-71 to David (except 66, 67, 71 anonymous ; in the last two (not 67 LXX{X}) bear David's name), 72 to Solomon ; doxology 72:18-19 followed by the subscription 'The prayers of David the son of Jesse are ended'.
  • Book iii., Pss. 73-89 : here 73-83 bear the name of Asaph, 84-85, 87-88 that of the Korahites, 86 of David, 88 also of Heman, 89 of Ethan ; doxology 89:52.
  • Book iv., Pss. 90-106 : all are anonymous except 90 (Moses), 101, 103 (David) - LXX gives also 104 to David ; here the doxology is peculiar, 'Blessed be Yahwe God of Israel from everlasting and to everlasting. And let all the people say Amen, Hallelujah'. [On this doxology with the preceding benediction see 17, end.]
  • Book v., Pss. 107-150 : of these 108-110, 122, 124, 131, 133, 138-145 are ascribed to David, and 127 to Solomon, and 120-134 are pilgrimage psalms ; varies considerably from the Hebrew as to the psalms to be ascribed to David, and assigns some to Haggai and Zechariah ; the book closes with a group of doxological psalms.

The division into five books was known to Hippolytus ; J but a closer examination of the doxologies shows that it does not represent the original scheme of the Psalter ; for, while the doxologies to the first three books are no part of the psalms to which they are attached, but really mark the end of a book in a pious fashion not uncommon in eastern literature, that to book iv. , with its rubric addressed to the people, plainly belongs to the psalm, or rather to its liturgical execution, and does not, there fore, really mark the close of a collection once separate.

i. In point of fact, books iv. and v. have so many common characters that there is every reason to regard them as a single great group.

ii. Again, the main part of books ii. and iii. (Ps. 42-83) is distinguished from the rest of the Psalter by habitually avoiding the name Yahwe (EV the LORD) and using Elohlm (God) instead, even in cases like Ps. 50:7, where 'I am Yahwe thy God' of Ex. 20:2 is quoted but changed very awkwardly to 'I am God thy God'. This is due not to the authors of the individual psalms, but to an editor ; for Ps. 53 is only another recension [with some peculiar variations 2 ] of Ps. 14, and Ps. 70 repeats part of Ps. 40, and here Yahwe is six times changed to Elohim, whilst the opposite change happens but once. The Elohlm psalms, then, have undergone a common editorial treatment distinguishing them from the rest of the Psalter. And they make up the mass of books ii. and iii. , the remaining psalms, 84-89, appearing to be a sort of appendix.

iii. When we look at the Elohim psalms more closely, however, we see that they contain two distinct elements : Davidic psalms and psalms ascribed to the Levitical choirs (sons of Korah, Asaph).

The Davidic collection as we have it splits the Levitical psalms into two groups, and actually divides the Asaphic Ps. 50 from the main Asaphic collection 73-83. This order can hardly be original, especially as the Davidic Elohim psalms [practically 51-71] have a separate subscription (Ps. 72:20). But if we remove them we get a continuous body of Levitical Elohim psalms, or rather two collections, the first Korahitic [42-49] and the second Asaphic [50, 73-83], to which there have been added by way of appendix by a non-Elohistic editor a supplementary group of Korahite psalms [84-85, 87-88] and one psalm (certainly late) ascribed to David [86].

[This very attractive theory is due to Ewald, Dichter des alten Bundes (2), 1;249, who remarks that (i) the force of the subscription in 72:20 (which indicates that something quite different follows) now first becomes manifest, and (2) Ps. 42-49, 50, 73-80 are now placed in a natural juxtaposition.]

1 The witness of Hippolytus is found in the Greek (ed. Lag., 193 ; closely followed by Epiphanius, De Mens. et Pond. 5 ; see Lagarde, Symmicta, 2:157) in a passage of which the genuineness has been questioned ; but the same doubt does not attach to the Syriac form of Hippolytus's testimony (Lagarde, Analecta Syriaca, 1858, p. 86). The Greek speaks of a division into five books Oi/SAi a [biblia]), the Syriac of five parts or sections (m?naivathe [menawathe]). The latter expression agrees best with Jerome s statement in the Prologus Galeatus, 'David quem quinque incisionibus et uno volumine comprehendunt [scil. Hebraei]'. In the preface to his Psalt. iuxta Hebraeos Jerome refuses to allow the expression 'five books' which some used (OTJC ('), 194, n. i). For the oldest Jewish evidence Schechter (ibid.) refers to B. Kiddushin, 33a ( 'two-fifths of the Book of Psalms' ).

2 [The critics are not of one mind as to the comparative merits of the two recensions. Delitzsch, Duhm, and Wellhausen prefer Ps. 14, but Hitzig, Ewald (at least in 1829, see St. Kr. 774-775), Olshausen, and (lately) Budde are in favour of Ps. 53. The text of both 'recensions' is surely very defective. Bickell (ZDMG 26:811) finds in Ps. 14 the acrostic OSPrr rt N, 'where is God?' ]

The formation of books iv. and v. is certainly later than the Elohistic redaction of books ii. and iii., for Ps. 108 is made up of two Elohim psalms (57:7-11 [57:8-12], 60:5-12 [60:7-14]) in the Elohistic form, though the last two books of the Psalter are generally Yahwistic.

iv. We can thus distinguish the following steps in the redaction :-

  • (a) the formation of a Davidic collection (book i. ) with a closing doxology ;
  • (b) a second Davidic collection (51-72) with doxology and subscription, and
  • (c) a twofold Levitical collection (42-49, 50, 73-83) ;
  • (d) an Elohistic redaction and combination of ((b) and (c)) ;
  • (e) the addition of a non-Elohistic supplement to (d) with a doxology ;
  • (f) a collection later than (d}, con sisting of books iv. v.
  • Finally, the anonymous psalms 1 2, which as anonymous were hardly an original part of book i. , may have been prefixed after the whole Psalter was completed.

We see, too, that it is only in the latest collection (books iv. v. ) that anonymity is the rule, and titles, especially titles with names, occur only sporadically. Elsewhere the titles run in series and correspond to the limits of older collections.

1 [Ewald compares Job 31:40, Jer. 51:64, and Robertson Smith (OTJC (2), 196, n. 2) refers to a parallel subscription in the Diwan of the Hodhalite poets (236 end), tamma hadha walillahi 'l-hamdu, etc., showing that the collection once ended at this point. Whether the words 'son of Jesse' always stood at the end of 72:20 has been doubted ; see 12 (d), end.]

2 The text of the passage is obscure and in part corrupt ; but the Latin 'cum multum temporis ibi fuissem'. probably expresses the author's meaning. A friend has suggested to the writer that for vvyvaopurac [sygchronisas] we ought perhaps to read <ru\vov iyxpovims- [sychnon i chronisas]

3 [Duhm, however, regards the compilation in 1 Ch. 16 as the insertion of a later hand. Similarly, but in more cautious words, St. GVI 2:215, n. 2. See 17.)

8. Dates of collections.[edit]

A process of collection which involves so many stages must plainly have taken a considerable time, and the question arises whether we can fix a limit for its beginning and end, or even assign a date for any one stage of the process.

i. External evidence. - An inferior limit for the final collection is given by the Septuagint translation. This translation itself, however, was not written all at once, and its history is obscure ; we only know, from the prologue to Ecclesiasticus, that the Hagiographa, and doubtless, therefore, the Psalter, were read in Greek in Egypt about 130 B.C. or somewhat later. 2 And the Greek Psalter, though it contains one apocryphal psalm at the close, is essentially the same as the Hebrew ; there is nothing to suggest that the Greek was first translated from a less complete Psalter and afterwards extended to agree with the extant Hebrew. It is, therefore, reasonable to hold that the Hebrew Psalter was completed and recognised as an authoritative collection long enough before 130 B.C. to allow of its passing to the Greek-speaking Jews in Alexandria. Beyond this the external evidence for the completion of the collection does not carry us.

It appears indeed from 1 Ch. 16:8-36, 2 Ch. 6:41-42, that various psalms belonging to books iv. and v. were current in the time of the Chronicler, 3 that is, towards the close of the Persian or more probably in the earlier part of the Greek period. But it is not certain that the psalms he quotes (96, 105, 106, 132) already existed in their place in our Psalter, or that Ps. 106 even existed in its present form.

ii. Internal evidence. - Turning now to internal evidence, we find the surest starting-point in the Levitical psalms of the Elohistic collection. These, as we have seen, form two groups, referred to the sons of Korah and to Asaph. At the beginning of the Greek period or somewhat later Asaph was taken to be a contemporary of David and chief of the singers of his time (Neh. 12:46), or one of the three chief singers belonging to the three great Levitical houses (1 Ch. 25:1-2). The older history, however, knows nothing of an individual Asaph ; at the time of the return from Babylon the guild of singers as a whole was called B'ne Asaph (Ezra 2:41), and so apparently it was in the time of Nehemiah (Neh. 11:22 Heb. ). {1} The singers or Asaphites are at this time still distinguished from the Levites ; the oldest attempt to incorporate them with that tribe appears in Ex. 6;24, where Abiasaph - that is, the eponym of the guild of Asaphites - is made one of the three sons of Korah. But when singers and Levites were fused the Asaphites ceased to be the only singers ; and ultimately, as we see in Chronicles, they were distinguished from the Korahites and reckoned to Gershom (i Ch. 6), while the head of the Korahites is Heman, as in the title of Ps. 88. It is only in the appendix to the Elohistic psalm-book that we find Heman and Ethan side by side with Asaph, as in the Chronicles, but the body of the collection distinguishes between two guilds of singers, Korahites and Asaphites, and is therefore as a collection younger than Nehemiah, but presumably older than Chronicles with its three guilds.

The contents of the Korahite and Asaphic psalms give no reason to doubt that they really were collected by or for these two guilds.

(a) Both groups are remarkable from the fact that they hardly contain any recognition of present sin on the part of the community of Jewish faith - though they do confess the sin of Israel in the past - but are exercised with the observation that prosperity does not follow righteousness either in the case of the individual (49, 73) or in that of the nation, which suffers notwithstanding its loyalty to God, or even on account thereof (44, 79). Now the rise of the problems of individual faith is the mark of the age that followed Jeremiah, whilst the confident assertion of national righteousness under mis fortune is a characteristic mark of pious Judaism after Ezra, in the period of the law but not earlier. Malachi, Ezra, and Nehemiah, like Haggai and Zechariah, are still very far from holding that the sin of Israel lies all in the past.

(b) Again, a considerable number of these psalms (44, 74, 79, 80) point to an historical situation which can be very definitely realised. They are post-exilic in their whole tone, and belong to a time when prophecy had ceased and the synagogue worship was fully established (74:8-9). But the Jews are no longer the obedient slaves of Persia ; there has been a national rising and armies have gone forth to battle. Yet God has not gone forth with them : the heathen have been victorious, blood has flowed like water round Jerusalem, the temple has been defiled, and these disasters assume the character of a religious persecution.

These details would fit the time of religious persecution under Antiochus Epiphanes, to which indeed Ps. 74 is referred (as a prophecy) in 1 Macc. 7;16. But against this reference there is the objection that these psalms are written in a time of the deepest dejection and yet are psalms of the temple choirs. Now when the temple was reopened for worship after its profanation by Antiochus, the Jews were victorious and a much more joyous tone was appropriate. Besides, if the psalms are of the Maccabee period, they can have been no original part of the Elohistic psalm-book, which certainly was not collected so late. But there is one and only one time in the Persian period to which they can be referred, viz., that of the great civil wars under Artaxerxes III. Ochus (middle of 4th cent. B.C.). The Jews were ins olved in these and were severely chastised, and we know from Josephus that the temple was defiled by the Persians and humiliating conditions attached to the worship there. It would appear that to the Jews the struggle took a theocratic aspect, and it is not impossible that the hopeful beginnings of a national movement, which proved in the issue so disastrous, are reflected in some of the other pieces of the collection. 1

(c) All this carries the collection of the Elohistic psalm-book down to quite the last years of the Persian period at the earliest, and with this it agrees - to name but one other point - that the view of Israel's past history taken in Ps. 78, where the final rejection of the house of Joseph is co-ordinated with the fall of Shiloh and the rise of Zion and the Davidic kingdom, indicates a standpoint very near to that of Chronicles. The fusion of the separate Korahite and Asaphic psalm-books in a single collection along with the second group of Davidic psalms may very probably be connected with the remodelling of the singers in three choirs which Chronicles presupposes.

(d) Now books iv. and v. are, as we have seen, later than the Elohistic redaction of books ii. and iii. , so that the collection of the last part of the Psalter must, if our argument up to this point is sound, be thrown into the Greek period, and probably not the earliest part thereof.

1 The threefold division of the singers appears in the same list according to the Hebrew text of v. 17 ; but the occurrence of Jeduthun as a proper name instead of a musical note is suspicious, and makes the text of LXX{BNA} [which suggests a twofold division ; see GENEALOGIES, 7, ii. (a), n. 3, but cp 26 (c), end] preferable. The first clear trace of the triple choir is, therefore, in Neh. 12:24 - i.e. , not earlier than Alexander the Great, with whom Jaddua (v. 22) was contemporary. [See EZRA-NEHEMIAH, ii ; NEHEMIAH, i.]

9. Confirmations of result so far.[edit]

This conclusion (8d) is borne out by a variety of indications.

i. First of all, the language of some of these psalms clearly points to a very late date indeed. 2 The Jews had even in the time of Nehemiah (Neh. 13:24) been in danger of forgetting their own tongue and adopting a jargon compounded with neighbouring idioms ; but the restorers of the law fought against this tendency with vigour, and with so much success that very tolerable Hebrew was written for at least a century longer. But in such a psalm as 139 the language is a real jargon, 3 a mixture of Hebrew and Aramaic, which, in a hymn accepted for use in the temple, shows the Hebrew speech to have reached the last stage of decay.

ii. Again, though no part of the Psalter shows clearer marks of a liturgical purpose, we find that in books iv. and v. the musical titles [if we may follow the majority and admit, comparing Duhm, Psalmen, 'Einl.', 30-31, that there are musical titles] have entirely disappeared. The technical terms, that is, of the temple music which are still recognised by the Chronicler* have gone out of use, presumably because they were already become unintelligible, as they were when the Septuagint version was made. This implies a revolution in the national music which we can hardly explain in any other way than by the influence of that Hellenic culture which, from the time Of the Macedonian conquest, began to work such changes on the whole civilisation and art of the East. Cp MUSIC, 12.

iii. Once more, the general tone of large parts of this collection is much more cheerful than that of the Elohistic psalm-book [42-83].

It begins with a psalm (90) ascribed in the title to Moses, and seemingly designed to express feelings appropriate to a situation analogous to that of the Israelites when, after the weary march through the wilderness, they stood on the borders of the promised land. It looks back on a time of great trouble and forward to a brighter future. In some of the following psalms there are still references to deeds of oppression and violence ; but more generally Israel appears as happy under the law, with such a happiness as it did enjoy under the Ptolemies during the third century B.C. The problems of divine justice are no longer burning questions ; the righteousness of God is seen in the peaceful felicity of the pious (91, 92 etc.). Israel, indeed, is still scattered and not triumphant over the heathen ; but even in the dispersion the Jews are under a mild rule (106:46), and the commercial activity of the nation has begun to develop beyond the seas (107:23-24).

1 Ps. 83, in which Judah is threatened by the neighbouring states acting with the support rather than under the guidance of Asshur (the satrap of Syria ?), is also much more easily understood under the loose rule of Persia than under the Greeks, and the association of Tyre with Philistia(as in 874)agrees with Pseudo-Scylax (see EB (P) 18:809), who makes Ascalon a Tyrian possession. If this psalm has a definite historical background, which De Wette and Hupfeld doubt, it must be later than the destruction of Sidon by Ochus, which restored to Tyre its old pre-eminence in Phoenicia.

2 For details as to the linguistic phenomena of the Psalms, see especially Giesebrecht in Stade's Zeitschr., 1881, p. 276+. The objections of Driver (Journ. of Phil. 11:233) do not touch the argument that such psalms as 130 [at least if MT is correct] belong to the very latest stage of biblical Hebrew. [See also Cheyne, OPs., Appendix ii., where, however, as also in Giesebrecht's and Driver s essays, due account is not taken of the uncertainty of MT.]

3 [So again in OTJCM 208. But in arrest of judgment see Ps. (*), where it is maintained that there is much corruptness in the traditional text.]

4 [So according to MT of 1 Ch. 15:20-21 (RV, 'set to Alamoth', 'set to the Sheminith' ); but see 26 (6b), and SHEMIMTH.]

The whole situation and vein of piety here are strikingly parallel to those shown in Ecclesiasticus, which dates from the close of the Ptolemaic sovereignty in Palestine. But some of the psalms carry us beyond this peaceful period to a time of struggle and victory.

In Ps. 118 Israel, led by the house of Aaron - this is a notable point - has emerged triumphant from a desperate conflict and celebrates at the temple a great day of rejoicing for the unhoped for victory ; in Ps. 149 the saints are pictured with the praises of God in their throat and a sharp sword in their hands to take vengeance on the heathen, to bind their kings and nobles, and exercise against them the judgment written in prophecy.

Such an enthusiasm of militant piety, plainly based on actual successes of Israel and the house of Aaron, can only be referred to the first victories of the Maccabees, culminating in the purification of the temple in 165 B. C. This restoration of the worship of the national sanctuary under circumstances that inspired religious feelings very different from those of any other generation since the return from Babylon, might most naturally be followed by an extension of the temple psalmody ; it certainly was followed by some liturgical innovations, for the solemn service of dedication on the twenty-fifth day of Chislev was made the pattern of a new annual feast (that mentioned in Jn. 10:22). Now in 1 Macc. 4;54 we learn that the dedication was celebrated with hymns and music. In later times the psalms for the encaenia, or feast of dedication, embraced Pss. 30 and 113-118 (the so-called HALLEL). There is no reason to doubt that these were the very psalms sung in 165 B.C., for in the title of Ps. 30 the words 'the song for the dedication of the house' (rran n|:rrTB>) which are a somewhat awkward insertion in the original title, are found also in LXX (\f/. t^dTJs TOV (yKa.ivicr/j.ov rod OIKOV), and therefore are probable evidence of the liturgical use of the psalm in the very first years of the feast (cp, however, 24). But no collection of old psalms could fully suffice for such an occasion, and there is every reason to think that the hallel, which, especially in its closing part, contains allusions that fit no other time so well, was first arranged for the same ceremony. The course of the subsequent history makes it very intelligible that the Psalter was finally closed, as we have seen from the date of the Greek version that it must have been, within a few years at most after this great event. 1 From the time of Hyrcanus downwards the ideal of the princely high priests becomes more and more divergent from the ideal of the pious in Israel, and in the Psalter of Solomon (41-42) we see religious poetry turned against the lords of the temple and its worship. [Besides the more recent commentaries, cp Riedel s article, ZATW 19 (1899) 169+. The question of the date of the final redaction will be treated more decisively when the text and the grouping of the psalms has been examined more thoroughly.]

1 Possibly under Simon ; compare the other hallel (Ps. 146-150) with 1 Macc. 13:50-51: [See also OPs. 11-12; Peters, New World, June 1893, p. 298.]

10. Older poems included ?[edit]

All this does not, of course, imply that there are not in books iv. and v. any pieces older than the completion of books ii. and iii. ( 8d), for the composition of a poem and its acceptance as part of the Levitical liturgy are not necessarily coincident in date, except in psalms written with a direct liturgical purpose. In the fifteen [so-called] 'songs of degrees' (Pss. 120-134) we have a case in point.

According to the Mishna (Middoth, 2:5) and other Jewish traditions [see Uelitzsch and Gratz] these psalms were sung by the Levites at the Feast of Tabernacles on the fifteen steps or degrees that led from the women s to the men s court. But when we look at the psalms themselves we see that they must originally have been a hymn-book, not for the Levites, but for the laity who came up to Jerusalem at the great pilgrimage feasts ; and the title of this hymn-book (which can be restored from the titles derived from it that were prefixed to each song when they were taken into the Levitical connection) was simply 'Pilgrimage Songs'. 1

All these songs are plainly later than the exile ; but some of them cannot well be so late as the formation of the Elohistic psalm-book.

The simple reason why they are not included in it is that they were hymns of the laity, describing with much beauty and depth of feeling the emotions of the pilgrim when his feet stood within the gates of Jerusalem, when he looked forth on the encircling hills, when he felt how good it was to be camping side by side with his brethren on the slopes of Zion {2} (133), when a sense of Yahwe's forgiving grace and the certainty of the redemption of Israel triumphed over all the evils of the present and filled his soul with humble and patient hope.

The titles which ascribe four of the pilgrimage songs to David and one to Solomon are lacking in the true LXX and inconsistent with the contents of the psalms. [In Ps. 122 the title seems to have been suggested by v. 5, the true rendering of which is, 'for there were set thrones of judgment, the thrones of the house of David'. 3]

[Of the titles of other pieces in book v. ] the name of Moses in Ps. 90 and that of David in Pss. 101, 103 108-110, 138-145 are better attested, because found in LXX as well as in the Hebrew, and therefore probably as old as the collection itself. But where did the last collectors of the Psalms find such very ancient pieces which had been passed over by all previous collectors, and what criterion was there to establish their genuineness ? No canon of literary criticism can treat as valuable external evidence an attestation which first appears so many centuries after the supposed date of the poems, especially when it is confronted by facts so conclusive as that Ps. 108 is made up of extracts from Pss. 57 and 60, and that Ps. 139 is marked by its language as one of the latest pieces in the book. The only possible question for the critic is whether the ascription of these psalms to David was due to the idea that he was the psalmist par excellence, to whom any poem of unknown origin was naturally ascribed, or whether we have in some at least of these titles an example of the habit so common in later Jewish literature of writing in the name of ancient worthies. In the case of Ps. 90 it can hardly be doubted that this is the real explanation, and the same account must be given of the title in Ps. 145, if, as seems probable, it is meant to cover the whole of the great hallel or tehillah (Pss. 145-150), which must, from the allusions in Ps. 149, as well as from its place, be almost if not quite the latest thing in the Psalter.

1 mVvDn TtP (nSl O as " Ezra 7:9) seems to be properly a plural [meaning, 'the songs of Pilgrimage' ] like fil2Nrt JV3. [Cp, however, 12 (d).]

2 [For the writer's interesting explanation of 133:2-3 see OTJC (2), 212, note.]

3 OTJC (2), 213.

11. Books 1-2 : 'Davidic' psalms.[edit]

For the later stages of the history of the Psalter we have, as has been seen (8-9), a fair amount of circumstantial evidence pointing to conclusions of a pretty definite kind. The approximate dates which their contents suggest for the collection of the Elohistic psalm-book [42-83] and of books iv. and v. confirm one another, and are in harmony with such indications as we obtain from external sources. But, in order to advance from the conclusions already reached to a view of the history of the Psalter as a whole, we have still to consider the two great groups of psalms ascribed to David in books i. and ii. Both these groups appear once to have formed separate collections and in their separate form to have been ascribed to David ; for in book i. every psalm, except the ntroductory poems Ps. 1-2 and the late Ps. 33, which may have been added as a liturgical sequel to Ps. 32, bears the title 'of David', and in like manner the group Pss. 51-72, though it contains a few anonymous pieces and one psalm which is either 'of 'or rather, according to the oldest tradition, 'for Solomon' (cp 12, ad init.}, is essentially a Davidic hymn-book, which has been taken over as a whole into the Elohistic Psalter, even the subscription 72:20 not being omitted, Moreover, the collectors of books 1-3 knew of no Davidic psalms outside of these two collections, for Ps. 86 in the appendix to the Elohistic collection is merely a cento of quotations from Davidic pieces with a verse or two from Exodus and Jeremiah. These two groups [3-41, 51-72], therefore, represented to the collectors the oldest tradition of Hebrew psalmody ; they are either really Davidic or they passed as such.

This fact is important ; but its weight may readily be over-estimated, for the Levitical psalms comprise poems of the last half-century of the Persian empire, and the final collection of books ii. and iii. may fall a good deal later. Thus the tradition that David is the author of these two collections comes to us, not exactly from the time of the Chronicler, but certainly from the time when the view of Hebrew history which he expresses was in the course of formation. It is not too much to say that that view - which to some extent appears in the historical psalms of the Elohistic Psalter [42-83] - implies absolute incapacity to understand the difference between old Israel and later Judaism, and makes almost anything possible in the way of the ascription of com paratively modern pieces to ancient authors.

Nor will it avail to say that this uncritical age did not ascribe the psalms to David but accepted them on the ground of older titles, for it is hardly likely that each psalm in the Davidic collections had a title before it was transferred to the larger Psalter ; and in any case the titles are manifestly the product of the same uncritical spirit as we have just been speaking of, for not only are many of the titles certainly wrong, but they are wrong in such a way as to prove that they date from an age to which David was merely the abstract psalmist, and which had no idea whatever of the historical conditions of his age. [But cp 45.]

(a) For example, Pss. 20-21 are not spoken by a king, but addressed to a king by his people ; Pss. 5, 27 allude to the temple (which did not exist in David's time), and the author of the latter psalm desires to live there continually. Even in the older Davidic psalm-book [3-41] there is a whole series of hymns in which the writer identities himself with the poor and needy, the righteous people of God suffering in silence at the hands of the wicked, without other hope than patiently to wait for the inter position of Yahwe (Pss. 12, 25, 37-38, etc.). Nothing can be farther removed than this from any possible situation in the life of the David of the books of Samuel ; and (b) the case is still worse in the second Davidic collection [51-72], especially where we have in the titles definite notes as to the historical occasion on which the poems are supposed to have been written. To refer Ps. 53 to doeg, Ps. 54 to the Ziphites, Ps. 59 to David when watched in his house by Saul, implies an absolute lack of the very elements of historical judgment. Even the bare names of the old history were no longer correctly known when Abimelech (the Philistine king in the stones of Abraham and Isaac) could be substituted in the title of Ps. 34 for Achish, king of Gath.

In a word, the ascription of these two collections to David has none of the characters of a genuine historical tradition. [On the whole question cp 25.]

At the same time it is clear that the two [Davidic] collections do not stand on quite the same footing. The Elohistic redaction - the change in the names of God - extends only to the second [51-72]. Now the formation of the Elohistic Psalter [42-83] must have been an official act directed to the consolidation of the liturgical material of the temple, and if it left one of the so-called Davidic collections untouched the reason must have been that this collection had already a fixed liturgical position. In other words, book 1 is the oldest extant liturgy of the second temple, whilst there is no evidence that the Davidic psalms of book 2 had a fixed liturgical place till at least the close of the Persian period.

12. Book 1 not pre-exilic.[edit]

And now the question arises : May we suppose that the oldest liturgy of the second temple was also the liturgy of the temple of Solomon ?

i. We have it in evidence that music and song accompanied the worship of the great sanctuaries of northern Israel in the eighth century B.C. (Am. 52:3): but from the context it appears probable that the musicians were not officers of the temple, but rather the worshippers at large (cp Am. 6:5). So it certainly was in the days of David (2 S. 6:5) and even of Isaiah (30:29 [but 30:27-33 may be a later insertion, see ISAIAH (BOOK), 12b]); the same thing is implied in the song of Hezekiah (Is. 38:20) ; and in Lam. 2:7 the noise within the sanctuary on a feast-day which affords a simile for the shouts of the victorious Chaldaeans suggests rather the untrained efforts of the congregation than the disciplined music of a temple choir. The allusion to 'chambers of singers' in Ezek. 40:44 is not found in the text of LXX, which is justified by the context, 1 and the first certain allusion to a class of singers belonging to the sacred ministers is at the return from Babylon (Ezra 2:41). The way in which these singers, the sons of Asaph, are spoken of may be taken as evidence that there was a guild of temple singers before the exile ; but they cannot have been very conspicuous or we should have heard more of them.

ii. The historical books, as edited in the captivity, are fond of varying the narrative by the insertion of lyrical pieces, and one or two of these - the 'passover song' (Ex. 15) and perhaps the song from the book of Jashar ascribed to Solomon (see OTJC^, 434; JASHER, BOOK OF, 3) - look as if they were sung in the first temple ; but they are not found in the Psalter, and, conversely, no piece from the Psalter is used to illustrate the life of David except Ps. 18, and it occurs in a section which can be shown to be an interpolation in the original form of 2 S.

iii. These facts seem to indicate that even book i. of the Psalter did not exist when the editing of the historical books was completed, and that in music as in other matters the ritual of the second temple was completely reconstructed. Indeed, the radical change in the religious life of the nation caused by the captivity could not fail to influence the psalmody of the sanctuary more than any other part of the worship.

(a) The book of Lamentations marks an era of profound im portance in the religious poetry of Israel, and no collection formed before these dirges were first sung could have been an adequate hymn-book for the second temple. In point of fact, the notes struck in the LAMENTATIONS (q.v.) and in Is. 40-66 meet our ears again in not a few psalms of book i., e.g., Ps. 22, 25, where the closing prayer for the redemption of Israel in a verse additional to the acrostic perhaps gives, as Lagarde suggests (Symmicta, 1:107), the characteristic post-exile name Pedael as that of the author ; 2 Ps. 31, with many points of resemblance to Jeremiah ; Ps. 84-85 where the 'servant of Yahwe' 3 is the same collective idea as in Deutero-Isaiah ; and Pss. 38, 41. The key to many of these psalms is that the singer is not an individual but, as in Lam. 3, the true people of God represented as one person ; and only in this way can we do justice to expressions which have always been a stumbling-block to those who regard David as the author.

(b) At the same time, other psalms of the collection treat the problems of individual religion in the line of thought first opened by Jeremiah. Such a psalm is 30, and above all Ps. 16. Other pieces, indeed, may well be earlier. When we compare Ps. 8 with Job 7:17-18 [on the text of which cp JOB (BOOK), 5], we can hardly doubt that the psalm lay before the writer who gave its expressions so bitter a turn in the anguish of his soul, and Ps. 20-21 plainly belong to the old kingdom. But on the whole it is not the pre-exilic pieces that give the tone to the collection.

Whatever the date of this or that individual poem, the collection as a whole - whether by selection or authorship - is adapted to express a religious life of which the exile is the presupposition. Only in this way can we understand the conflict and triumph of spiritual faith, habitually represented as the faith of a poor and struggling band living in the midst of oppressors and with no strength or help save the consciousness of loyalty to Yahwe, which is the fundamental note of the whole book.

Whether any of the older poems really are David's is a question more curious than important, as, at least, there is none which we can fit with certainty into any part of his life. If we were sure that 2 S. 22 was in any sense part of the old tradition of David's life, there would be every reason to answer the question in the affirmative, as has been done by Ewald ; but the grave doubts that exist on this point throw the whole question into the region of mere conjecture.

[Driver remarks (Introd (') , 380), 'The generality of 2 S. 22:1 detracts considerably from its value: there was no "day" on which Yahwe delivered David "out of the hand of Saul." Contrast 2 S. 1:17'. ]

The contents of book i. make it little probable that it was originally collected by the temple ministers, whose hymn-book it ultimately became. The singers and Levites were ill provided for, and consequently irregular in their attendance at the temple, till the time of Nehemiah, who made it his business to settle the revenues of the clergy in such a way as to make regular service possible. With regular service a regular liturgy would be required, and in the absence of direct evidence it may be conjectured that the adoption of the first part of the Psalter for this purpose took place in connection with the other far-reaching reforms of Ezra and Nehemiah, which first gave a stable character to the community of the second temple. In any case these psalms, full as they are of spiritual elements which can never cease to be the model of true worship, are the necessary complement of the law as published by Ezra, and must be always taken along with it by those who would understand what Judaism in its early days really was, and how it prepared the way for the gospel.

1 [For D"1E , singers, read D JW, two, with Hitz., Smend, etc. ; point niaC X]

2 [Lagarde makes a similar suggestion for Ps. 34, where the additional verse begins with m.v mifl- See Rahlfs, <jj; und Uj; in den Psa/men, 41, and cp PEDAIAH.]

3 [This involves reading in 34:22 nay for vnaj;.]

13. Date of second Davidic collection.[edit]

The second Davidic collection, which begins with a psalm of the exile (Ps. 51 ; see the last two verses), contains some pieces which carry us down to a date decidedly later than that of Nehemiah. Thus Ps. 68:27 represents the worshipping congregation as drawn partly from the neighbourhood of Jerusalem and partly from the colony of Galilee [so Wellhausen]. In several psalms of this collection, as in the Levitical psalms with which it is coupled, we see that the Jews have again begun to feel themselves a nation, not a mere municipality, though they are still passing through bitter struggles ; and side by side with this there is a development of Messianic hope, which in Ps. 72 takes a wide sweep, based on the vision of Deutero-Isaiah. All these marks carry us down for this as for the other collections of the Elohistic Psalter [42-83] to the time when passive obedience to the Achasmenians was interrupted. Several points indicate that the collection was not originally formed as part of the temple liturgy. The title, as preserved in the subscription to Ps. 72:20, was not 'Psalms' [though LXX gives ii/icot [omnoi] = ^niStj-i 1] ] but 'Prayers of David'. Again, while the Levitical psalms were sung in the name of righteous Israel, of which, according to the theory of the second temple, the priestly and Levitical circles were the special holy representatives, these Davidic psalms contain touching expressions of contrition and confession (51, 65). And, while there are direct references to the temple service, these are often made from the standpoint, not of the ministers of the temple, but of the laity who come up to join in the solemn feasts or appear before the altar to fulfil their vows (Ps. 54:6, 55:14, 63, 66:13, etc. ). Moreover, the didactic element so prominent in the Levitical psalms is not found here.

1 [Gratz and T. K. Abhott accept this reading.]

14. Why called Davidc.[edit]

Such is the fragmentary and conjectural outline which it seems possible to supply of the history of the two Davidic collections, from which it appears that the name of David which they bear is at least so far appropriate as it marks the generally non-clerical origin of these poems. The positive origin of this title must be sought in another direction and in connection with book 1. From the days of Amos, and in full accordance with the older history, the name of David had been connected with musical skill and even the invention of musical instruments (Amos 6:5 [but cp DAVID, 13, n. 3]). In the days of Nehemiah, though we do not hear of psalms of David, 1 we do learn that instruments of the singers were designated as Davidic, and the epithet 'man of God' (Neh. 12:36) probably implies that, agreeably with this, David was already regarded as having furnished psalms as well as instruments. But it was because the temple music was ascribed to him that the oldest liturgy came to be known in its totality as 'Psalms of David', and the same name was extended to the lay collection of 'Prayers of David', while the psalms whose origin was known because they had always been temple psalms were simply named from the Levitical choirs, or at a later date had no title.

15. Technical terms in titles.[edit]

[At the close of his monograph on the Titles of the Psalms according to early Jewish authorities (Studio. Biblica, 257) Neubauer writes thus :

'From all these different expositions of the titles of the Psalms it is evident that the meaning of them was early lost ; in fact, the LXX and the other early Greek and Latin translators offer no satisfactory explanation of most of them. Of the best Jewish commentators like Ibn Ezra and David Kimhi, the former treats them as the opening words of popular melodies, the other as names of instruments, both confessing that the real meanings are unknown. Saadyah is no more successful ; the Karaitic writers refer them mostly to the present exile, which is more Midrashic than the Midrash upon which the Targum is based. Immanuel [of Rome, the friend of Dante] and Remokh [of Barcelona] put Averroism in them and in the Psalms. The Syriac headings are a comparatively late production and arbitrary. Thus, when all traditional matter is exhausted, the only remaining resource is the critical method, which, however, on the present subject has as yet made no considerable progress' (see 26).

On musical notes like Neginoth, Sheminith, etc., no suggestion is offered either in the EB article on the Psalms or in OTJC (2). On one point, however, the writer had reached a definite opinion (cp OTJC (2) 209), viz. , that a number of the psalms were set to melodies named after popular songs, 2 and that of one of these songs, beginning rrnc rr^K (see titles of Pss. 57-58), a trace is still preserved in Is. 658 (see OTJC (2), 209, and cp AL-TASCHITH).]

1 I.e., not in the parts of the book of Nehemiah which are by Nehemiah himself.

2 Compare the similar way of citing melodies with the prep. 'al or 'al kala, etc., in Syriac (Land, Anecd., 4; Ephr. Syr., Hymni, ed. Lamy). [Cp OTJC (2) l.c.]

16. Use of psalms in temple.[edit]

From this [interesting feature in some of the musical titles] we may infer that the early religious melody of Israel had a popular origin, and was closely connected with the old joyous life of the nation. From the accounts of the musical services of the Levites in Chronicles no clear picture can be obtained or any certainty as to the technical terms used [cp Neubauer, as above, 15]. From Theophrastus (ap. Porph. , De Abstin. 2:26) -perhaps the first Greek to make observations on the Jews - we may at least gain an illustration of the original liturgical use of Pss. 8, 134. He speaks of the worshippers as passing the night in gazing at the stars and calling on God in prayer, words suggestive rather than strictly accurate. Some of the Jewish traditions as to the use of particular psalms have been already cited ; it may be added that the Mishna (Tamid 7:3) assigns to the service of the continual burnt-offering the following weekly cycle of psalms, -

  • (1) 24,
  • (2) 48,
  • (3) 82,
  • (4) 94,
  • (5) 81,
  • (6) 93,
  • (Sabbath) 92, as in the title.

[Cp Neubauer, op. cit., p. 4; Herzfeld, GVI 3163 Gratz, MGWJ 27:217+. The notice in the Mishna is in the main confirmed by the LXX, which for most of these psalms mentions the appointed day of the week in the title ; the exceptions are 82 and 81. It is remarkable that in the Hebrew text only the psalm for the Sabbath is indicated, which may confirm the view mentioned below ( 26 [26]) that mm or 1 ? is a corruption of rvroc S - i.e., perhaps c 3rrnV 'of the Ethanites'. ] Many other details are given in the treatise Sepherim ; but these for the most part refer primarily to the synagogue service after the destruction of the temple. For details on the liturgical use of the Psalter in Christendom the reader may refer to Smith's Dict. Chr. Ant., s.v. 'Psalmody'. W. K. S.


17. Recent criticism.[edit]

If Kautzsch's statement of the case in his Outline of the History of the Literature of the OT (1898, with which some pages from his pen in Th. Stud. u. Krit. l891 pp. 577+ may be compared) is correct, no very striking progress has been made in the criticism of the Psalter since the first publication of Robertson Smith s article. That there are some pre-exilic pieces in the collection, though none that can plausibly be shown to be Davidic, was stated in 1886 in this article, and Prof. Kautzsch does little more than restate it. These are his words, as given by the translator of his excellent work (p. 143):

'Our present Psalter in all probability contains a fair number of pre-exilic songs or fragments of songs. To say nothing of the so-called Royal Psalms, 20, 21, 45, which can only be under stood as songs from before the exile, or of the manifold traces of antique phraseology, one circumstance in particular supports this. Such energetic denial of the necessity of the sacrificial ritual as is found in 40:7 [40:6], 50:8+, and 51:18-19 [51:16-17] (softened down with much trouble by the liturgical addition,v. 20-21 [18-19]) could not have found its way into the temple hymn-book till the psalms which contain it had long been clothed with a kind of canonical dignity' (p. 143).

Elsewhere (p. 145-146) Kautzsch admits isolated Maccabaean psalms in the second collection (Pss. 42-89) and a larger number in the third (Pss. 90-150). He makes no reference, however, to the existence of an imperfectly solved problem, and here Robertson Smith's article is superior to the Outline.

It must be admitted that several of the best-known scholars agree on the main point (pre-exilic psalms) with Kautzsch. Thus Konig (Einl. 401+) recognises the Davidic origin 1 of some psalms as historically probable (!), and as careful a scholar, Driver (Introd.W 380, 384+), recognises certain pre-exilic psalms, beginning with 2, 18, 20, 21, and ending with 101, 110. Among American scholars we find J. P. Peters expressing the opinion 2 that not only Ps. 20-21, but even perhaps the greater part of book 1 of the Psalms, is pre-exilic, and that some at least of the psalms of the Korahite and Asaphite collections are based on old Israelite originals, Pss. 42 and 46 being ultimately de rived from the N. Israelitish temple of Dan, and Pss. 77b, 80 and 81 from that of Bethel (!). Dr. Peters is also of opinion that Davidic psalms, edited, adapted, added to, and subtracted from, and therefore hardly to be identified, survive in our Psalter.

Kirkpatrick 3 represents a less original type of traditionalism. In his commentary he repeatedly speaks of more or less probable, or even certain, Davidic psalms. Elsewhere he refers for pre-exilic psalms in the first place to the royal psalms, and to the psalms of praise for the deliverance of Jerusalem (46, 48, 75, 76), which can 'securely (?) be claimed for the age of the kingdom', and which may carry many others with them, also to the phrase 'the sweet psalmist (!) of Israel', which he accepts as the true meaning of 2 S. 23:1-2, {1} and to the improbability (?) that late psalmists could write fairly good Hebrew.

1 When Konig states that OPs. 193-194, 205 admits a Davidic element in Ps. 18 he is evidently under a misunderstanding, as will appear from the phrases in OPs. ( 'inspired by the teaching of the higher prophets' ; 'inconsistent with Davidic author ship'. )

2 New World, June 1893, pp. 303.7?

3 Divine library of the OT (1891), 150-152 ; Book of Psalms (1891-1895), Introd. 32-33 ; also pp. 14, 20, 73, etc

Budde is more cautious. He expresses the view (1892) that many pre-exilic elements must have passed 'into the flesh and blood of the post-exilic temple-poetry', though he says that he does not feel at all bound to indicate them, 2 and (1899) that many psalms 'were the expression of such a relation (viz., of blissful intercourse with God) before the community ever appropriated them'. 3

Wildeboer (Letterkunde^ [1893], 306) says : 'Though it is not possible to tell with certainty which psalms are pre-exilic, and what form they originally had, it is most probable that, especially out of the oldest of the collections which form the foundation of our Psalter, some have been transferred to our Psalter'.

Such are the judgments of the chief critics who support Kautzsch. One of them, however (Budde), gives him only a qualified assent, and it may now be added that Wellhausen, the William Tell of critics, makes up by his consistency for the hesitation of some of his colleagues. In the notes to the English version of the psalms in SBOT (1898), this eminent scholar repeats the substance of a sentence which he inserted in Bleek's Einleitung in das AT(4), in these emphatic words : 'It is not a question whether there be any post-exilic psalms, but rather, whether the psalms contain any poems written before the exile. The strong family likeness which runs through the Psalms forbids our distributing them among periods of Israelitish history widely separated in time and fundamentally unlike in character' (163).

Duhm, too, in a work to which no one can deny the merit of acuteness (Psalmen, 1899), has altogether broken with the critical hypothesis of pre-exilic psalms ; and so too has the present writer, who in 1891 only with some hesitation admitted Ps. 18 to be late pre-exilic - a concession long since retracted, though in 1896 he held it to be not impossible that 'some of the psalms (in an earlier form) were written in Babylonia before the Return - i.e., between 538 and 432, the date of the return of the Golah, according to Kosters'. 4

At the same time, it is only too plain that even the advanced criticism represented by Wellhausen and Duhm is to a large extent only provisional. Negatively, the position of these scholars may rightly seem to them secure ; but positively, they would be the first to admit that often they do but see in twilight. Duhm, for instance, whose criticism of the text is often so unmethodical, cannot feel equal confidence about all the details of his system. According to him, the oldest psalm, among those which have a clearly defined date, is 137, which has been adapted from a popular song, written during the Babylonian exile. Yet, strange to say, Duhm cannot mention any psalm which specially suggests the Persian period for its composition. On the other hand he assigns

  • not a few psalms to the pre-Maccabaean Greek period - viz., 3, 4, 11, 16, 42-43 (23, 27a?), 46, 48, 51 (?), 52, 62, 76, 87 (?) ;
  • to the Maccabaean struggle, 12 (?), 13 (?), 24c (?), 35, 44, 55, 69a, 74, 77, 79, 83, 118, 149 ;
  • to the time of the Asmonaean high priests, 60a, 66a, 66b, 85, 99, 101, 110:1-4 ;
  • 2 18, (144a and b), 20, 21, 45, 61, 63, 68, 72, 84, 89, 132, and a large number of psalms, including 9, 10, 14, 56, 57, 58, 59, 64, 82, 92, 94, 140 (psalms which, he thinks, show a remarkable resemblance to the Psalms of Solomon ) to the Pharisees as opponents of the Asmonaeans.

This goes far beyond the views of Wellhausen ( Psalms, SBOT, 1898), and those enunciated by the present writer in 1891 (Origin of the Psalter}.

1 Can it be probable that the composition of sweet songs for Israel's use would be made parallel to the having received the sacred unction as king? Even if we read rnp! (Ges.-Bu., W. R. Smith ?), and rendered 'the sweet musician of Israel', we should only gain a parallelism (not phraseological) with 1 S. 16:16; there would still be no parallelism with 2 S. 23:1d. 'The favourite of the songs of Israel' (Klost., Kittel) is syntactically easier, but still not parallel to d. LXX{BA} seems to have found a difficulty in D13 (evTrpcTreis i//aA/j.oi ItrporjA [enprepeis psalmooi israel). The parallel opening of Balaam's third and fourth oracles suggests 7N ^r^ iTI-B , a "d this would fit in well with v. 2.

2 TLZ, May 14, 1892, col. 252. In Exp. T. 12 (1001) 288 he says that, in his opinion, the majority of the psalms will have passed through a whole series of phases before reaching their present form. This opens the door to a large acceptance of pre-exilic elements, and seems an exaggeration ; at least, the evidence adduced in Budde's discussion of Pss. 14 and 53 seems hardly to warrant the hypothesis, so far as this psalm in its twofold form is concerned.

3 Religion of Israel to the Exile, 198.

4 'The Book of Psalms', etc., in Semitic Studies in Memory of A. Kohut (1897), p. 115. Date of essay, 1896.

18. On Maccabaean psalms.[edit]

Evidently the criticism of the psalms is still only in a vigorous youth. There are still some critics who hold pre-exilic and even Davidic elements in the Psalter to be possible or even probable, and while Budde, 1 Briggs, 2 and Oort 3 have expressed considerable scepticism as to the feasibleness of dating individual psalms, the present writer in 1891 and Duhm quite recently have thought it to be often possible as well as desirable to search for a probable historical setting of psalms, many of the psalms being clearly the offspring of moods produced by definite historical circumstances. As to Maccabaean psalms, which are certainly by no means inconceivable, 4 whilst Konig (Einl. 403) can only see his way to recognise one Maccabaean psalm - viz. , 74 - many (e.g. , Baethgen, Kautzsch, and Cornill) declare that, at any rate, Pss. 44, 74, 79 and 83 must be early Maccabaean, {5} and Merx (Festschrift zu Ehren von D. Chwolson, 1899, pp. 198-199) undertakes to show that even in book 1 there are manifest traces of Maccabaean transformation of earlier psalms, whilst Ps. 2 itself is of the very latest period. Driver (p. 385) appears to stand nearer to Kautzsch than to Konig ; the only member of the group of four psalms which he omits is Ps. 44, {6} but he allows (p. 389) the attractiveness of Robertson Smith's Ochus-theory (23). It is difficult, however, to separate Ps. 44 from Pss. 74, 79, and 83, though certainly there are excellent grounds for questioning its unity. If we accept MT as substantially correct (against which see 28), it would seem that we must either, with Robertson Smith, assign 44 (or rather 44b), 74 (or rather 74 a), 79 and 83, to the time of Artaxerxes III. Ochus, or (since the evidence for that king s oppression of the Jews is defective [see 23]) follow the majority of critics and make them Maccabaean. To the latter course Prof. Schechter would object that the parallelisms between Ps. 44:18 [44:19] and Ecclus. 46:11c and between Ps. 74:10-11, 74:13 and Ecclus. 36:6-7, 36:10 exclude a Maccabaean origin. {7} Of these, the first is of no significance. With regard to the remaining parallelisms it would be permissible to suppose that the impassioned prayer in Ecclus. 86:1-17, together with 35:18-20, was inserted during the Syrian persecution, for it is certainly unique in the Wisdom of Ben Sira. Too plainly, there is no agreement as yet with regard to the course to be adopted. Nor are the critics even at one as regards the amount of indirect value to be attached to the headings of the psalms, and the grouping of the psalms in 'minor Psalters'.

1 TLZ, 14th May 1892, col. 254 ; that Budde should guard himself from an extreme statement, was only to be expected.

2 New World, March 1900, p. 176.

3 In a passage attached to the posthumous essay of Kosters on the Psalms of Solomon (1898), p. 33.

4 The vague phrase ra dAAa n-arpia (SijSAi a [ta alla patria biblia] (not ciyia [agia]) in the Prologue to Ecclesiasticus permits us to hold that the canon of the Kethubim was still open. On ra TOV AaviS, 2 Macc. 213, see Wildeboer, Het Ontstaan van den Kanon des Oudcn Verbonds (3), 137 (a collection of Davidic psalms, such as 3-41).

5 Even Delitzsch held 74 and 79 to be Maccabaean (cp OPs. ,103).

6 Ps. 83, however, he includes doubtfully.

7 Wisdom of Ben Sira (Cambridge, 1899), pp. 26, 37. Schechter overlooks the conventionality of psalm-composition. It would have been better to quote passages from works in which the difficulties referred to were expressly dealt with, except of course so far as relates to Ben Sira. There is no more characteristic doctrine of the early Judaism than the typical character of the early Jewish history. The psalmists knew it well, and acted upon it.

19. On pre-exilic psalms.[edit]

This uncertainty is regrettable, but need not surprise us. It is only recently that the objections to a post-exilic date for the priestly code, with the attendant narratives, have been generally admitted to be invalid, and it is intelligible that some critics, jealous for the honour of early Israelitish religion, should declare themselves unable to form a satisfactory picture of pre-exilic religion without some distinct evidences that the teaching of the prophets had begun to produce in individuals a sense of personal communion with God. It is also intelligible that the discovery of early Babylonian and Assyrian hymns should have awakened a desire to be able to point to early Israelitish hymns, and that the modern longing to find organic development every where should have produced in some critics an inclina tion to be somewhat easy in the matter of evidence for early Israelitish hymns, which must, as they rightly assume, have been produced, and have influenced the form, if not the ideas, of the later psalms.

Nor is it likely that the belief in pre-exilic psalms would hold its ground, even if no fresh critical start were to be made. To those who have passed out of the semi-traditional phase of criticism the arguments offered for pre-exilic psalms in our Psalter cannot appear to have much cogency. Prof. Kautzsch, for instance, claims as such (though without dwelling much on this trite argument) the psalms referring to a king. It is more interesting to find that he rejects the theory that different views were taken in post-exilic times as to the origin and importance of the sacrificial cultus. Such differences, however, are to be found in other great religions (e.g. , Brahmanism, Zoroastrianism, Christianity); why not also in early Judaism ? No one would be so unwise as to suggest that any of the psalmists, at any rate if temple-singers, were directly opposed to the sacrificial system ; but there were probably not a few psalmistswho wrote with a viewtothe synagogue-worship, and, even apart from this, no psalmist who had any affinity to Jeremiah (see Jer. 7:22-23, 8:8) could miss the sublime truth that obedience and thanksgiving were the true 'divine service'. 1 It is highly improbable that Kautzsch regards B. Jacob's treatment of psalms like 40, 50, and 51 {2} as adequate and satisfactory. Kautzsch does not deny the spiritualising Jeremianic tone of these psalms ; but he accounts for this by the theory that they arose before the priestly code had arisen - i.e. , that they are pre-exilic. Now, the theory of late pre-exilic psalms influenced by Jeremiah, formerly held by the present writer (Book of Psalms, 1888), will not stand a close examination. Jeremiah s influence was felt not by his contemporaries but by posterity - a posterity which, to do honour to the spirit of prophecy, thought fit to expand largely the contents of the roll of Jeremiah s works. And with regard to the difficulty of conceiving how utterances of a non-sacrificial view of religion could have found admission into the larger Psalter, we may fairly ask how, after Pss. 40 and 51 have been admitted into 'Davidic' collections, 3 and Ps. 50 into a fasciculus of 'Asaphite' psalms, the psalms referred to could have been finally rejected by any editor. We may also express the opinion that the predilection of the guardians of religious classics for uniformity belongs to a more advanced stage of theological development.

Another remark of the same critic ( Kautzsch, in Th. Stud, u, Krit. as above) seems to deserve notice. It relates to the 'antique rust' which all the labours of editors of the psalms could not altogether remove from certain early psalms. For a genuine oerugo vetustatis we must all have great respect. But the value of the linguistic argument in OT criticism has been exaggerated. Kautzsch himself would surely admit that 'antique' forms, #7ra \ey6/j.eva [hapax legomena], etc., may often be due merely to accidents in the transmission of the texts ; 1 and his own very long list of corruptions in the text of the psalms (see Die heil. Schrift, 'Beilagen', 69+), which might easily have been made considerably longer, detracts from the force of his remark.

The only other critic whom it is important to notice here is Budde, who, perhaps unintentionally, identifies two statements which ought to be carefully separated. That pre-exilic psalmody may well have influenced the form of post-exilic compositions is one proposition ; that pre-exilic psalms, or parts of psalms, have passed into our Psalter is another. As stated above, we have no sufficient grounds for thinking that the religious teaching of the higher prophets found any wide acceptance among the people. Some influence, indeed, it may have exercised (Jeremiah evidently had powerful friends), but not enough to account for the production of poems like our psalms. We may, therefore, reaffirm the position that -

'In spite of the analogies from the Chaldaean, the Vedic, and the Zoroastrian hymns, it is not possible to hold that there is any large 2 admixture of old and new in the Hebrew Psalter; almost every psalm might be appropriately styled a 'new song'. And even if any relatively old songs were used as models by the temple-poets, the preference would surely be given to those inspired by the teaching of the higher prophets, such as ... the lyric fragments incorporated into the Second Isaiah'. 3

1 See OPs. 364-367. and cp JEREMIAH, 4, end.

2 ZATW [1897], 17:67, 17:273-279.

3 We leave the name David as yet unquestioned (see below, 26 [4]).

20. Robertson Smith.[edit]

Prof. Robertson Smith's criticism, then, when compared with that of other recent critics, may be regarded as fairly representative of that current at the close of the nineteenth century ; and it is no disparagement to it to remark that its defect lay partly in its too mechanical character, partly in its want of a sufficiently firm textual basis.

First of all, the critic lays, it would seem, a somewhat ex aggerated stress on the Psalters within the Psalter, and on his theory of the development of the singers guilds. He did not undertake the comparative work required for distinguishing other groups than the traditional ones - viz., those which are proved to exist virtually by close affinities of language and ideas, and deserve not less consideration than those which, judging from the titles and from other external evidence, have still an objective existence as 'minor Psalters'. 4

In the next place, he did not, it would seem, fully realise the state of the Hebrew text of the psalms, which, when closely examined, turns out to be in very many parts corrupt, nor did he recognise the fact that by a combination of old and new methods the text can often be restored with a high degree of probability, or even with certainty.

To this must be added that he does not appear to have considered the question whether some of the psalms, in addition to those recognised as such by Ewald (19, 24, 60 [?], 66, 108, 144), may not be composite. 5

1 OPs. 462.

2 This cautious adjective might now be omitted.

3 OPs. 194.

4 Cheyne, in Semitic Studies in Memory of Alex. Kohut, 114. The principle of virtually existent groups has been adopted by Ewald (Psalmen W, 1866), by the present writer (OPs. 1891), and with regard to a group of eleven psalms (22, 25, 31, 34-35, 38, 40, 49, 71, 102, 109), by Rahlfs (^y und ny in den Psalmen, 1892). The date assigned by Rahlfs to the psalms of this group is late in and soon after the exile.

8 The importance of this has been specially noted by J. P. Peters (New World, June 1893, pp. 287 f.); the idea was not new, but needed to be brought into greater prominence.

21. W. Sanday.[edit]

A somewhat similar point of view is represented by Sanday, but with a retrogressive tendency not observable in Robertson Smith. In his Bampton Lectures (Inspiration, 1893, pp. 256+, 270+) Sanday points out that the historical allusions in the Psalter 'are for the most part so vague, and our knowledge of the history of the period into which they are to be fitted is so imperfect, that no satisfactory conclusion can be drawn from them until the more external data have been fully estimated'. He then quotes the opinion of a 'judicious German scholar' (Budde), that the parallel texts, the Elohistic redaction of Pss. 42-83, and the separate collections indicated by the titles, may form an invaluable basis for the history of the Psalter, and proceeds to give 'a specimen suggested by Ps. 79, of the kind of considerations on which stress might well be laid'. These considerations have to do with the steps which must be supposed to have intervened between the composition of this psalm and its inclusion in the LXX version, and taking them together Sanday finds it extremely difficult to get them into the interval between the Maccabaean revolt and the date (100 B.C. ?) of the Greek Psalter. He is aware (256, n. 3) that 'even writers so conservative as Driver and Baethgen allow the existence of Maccabaean psalms', but apparently does not think it safe to admit that the few psalms contended for in the first instance by these scholars made their way into the composite Elohistic collection, the bulk of which is pre-Maccabaean.

A plea for revision of currently-held opinions is always welcome, and we shall wait to see whether any critic attempts to write the history of the formation of the Psalter on the lines proposed by Sanday. For our own part, we do not believe that that vivid realisation of the meaning of the psalms, which is the grand object of exegesis, will be brought nearer to us by such a procedure. We have to open our eyes to the phenomena of the Hebrew text, and learn to detect the true text underlying manifest corruptions ; only then will the main problems of the Psalter become revealed to us. Even apart from this, the course recommended by Sanday is not a practical one ; we could not wait for the history of the formation of the Psalter before attempting to study the historical allusions. Even to be mistaken would be a less misfortune than to be thrown back on the dim, colourless exegesis of Hupfeld and his school. Robertson Smith himself was by no means an extreme advocate of the external data ; indeed, he helped forward the study of the historical allusions when he put forward the 'Ochus theory' (see 21 ) in a more plausible form - a theory which may be right or wrong, but pointed in the right direction, and made it possible for some critics to explain Pss. 44, 74, 79, 83 historically, without having to meet the difficulty (be it great or small) inherent in the Maccabaean hypothesis. These critics had no prejudice against the study of external data, though they could not accept Sanday's attempted rectification of boundaries. One of the most obvious gains to be expected from further study is the discovery of some of the sources from which the collectors of the 'minor Psalters' drew, for clear traces of earlier collections are still traceable in the Psalter. It is certain, however, that much greater results than this may be looked for from the adoption of a more frankly critical attitude towards the traditional text.


22. Fresh survey of psalter.[edit]

It is now our duty to take a survey of the psalms, assuming the results of such a criticism as is described in the last paragraph. Before doing so (see 27), however, we have

  • (1) to consider (making our statement as compact as possible in view of the heavy demands upon our space) Robertson Smith s theory that certain psalms refer to the time of Artaxerxes Ochus (23),
  • (2) to take up a position towards G. B. Gray's theory respecting the royal psalms (24), and
  • (3) to put side by side with the traditional readings (which have received such conflicting explanations) of the headings of the psalms in MT, readings suggested by a careful criticism of the text, some of which appear to be approximately certain, others distinctly probable, and a few, at any rate, more possible and plausible than those which are commonly received (24).
23. Ochus theory.[edit]

Feeling it difficult to make Pss, 44, 74, 79 later than the Persian period, Robertson Smith 1 revived an early view of Ewald (Dichler des Alten Bundes(1) [1835], 353; Hist. 5:120 n.) that the occasion of these psalms is to be sought in the history of Artaxerxes Ochus. Between 363 and 345 there were two Palestinian rebellions against Persia (cp ISRAEL, 66), and it is at least possible that the Jews may have failed to resist the temptation to take part in one of them. The reputation of Ochus for cruelty is well known (PERSIA, 20), and it has till lately not been questioned that he punished the Jews severely for their rebellion. We have information of a conflict of the Persians with the Jews which ended in the destruction of Jericho, and the transportation of a part of the Judcean population to Hyrcania and Babylonia. According to Robertson Smith the narrative in Josephus (Ant. 11:7:1) of the pollution of the temple by Bagoses is really 'a pragmatical invention' designed to soften, as being a divine chastisement, the outrages on city and people committed by order of Ochus. Wellhausen too appears to hold (or to have held) a similar view (IJG, 146), and Marquart (Unters. zur Gesch. von Eran, 25) infers from the passage in Josephus that a part of the Jewish community rebelled against the Persian rule. Many, too, have supposed (with Gutschmid and Noldeke) that the wars of Ochus form the historical background of the Book of Judith.

Unfortunately, all this is only plausible. Moreover, one part of the evidence (that relating to the destruction of Jericho) has been shown by Reinach to refer to a much later period, whilst the second-hand evidence of the Byzantine chronographer Syncellus, 2 though accepted by such a keen critic as Marquart, cannot be held decisive. Willrich - a keen though perhaps somewhat too sceptical critic - claims Josephus as a witness against Persian oppression of the Jews, and quotes the passage, c. Ap. 2:11, 134, which states that whereas the Egyptians were servants to the Persians and the Macedonians, the Jews were free and ruled over the cities round about. He holds that in the passage, Jos. Ant, 11:7:1, 'Bagoses [var. lect. Bagoas] the general of the other Artaxerxes' (fiXXou [allou] Apr.), 'other' is an interpolation, and that it was the Christian chronographers who, through identifying Bagoses with BAGOAS (q.v.), converted Artaxerxes Ochus into a persecutor of the Jews. 3

It is true that from an exegetical point of view there is much to be said in favour of Robertson Smith s view which explains Pss. 44, 74, 79 by cruelties, partly in the nature of vengeance, partly dictated by religious opposition, on the part of this Persian king. Unless we are prepared to assign a good many more psalms than 44 74 79 to the Greek period, it is certainly unadvisable to assign the psalms mentioned either to the time of Ptolemy Lagi (who treated Jerusalem with cruelty 4 ) or - a more plausible theory - to that of Antiochus Epiphanes. In the matter of historical criticism, however, we are all, by further experience, becoming more and more exacting, and it appears hazardous to build such an important theory on doubtful statements of uncritical writers. 5

As for Is. 63:7-64:12 [63:7-64:11], though the supposed oppression of the Jews by Ochus would afford a full explanation of its gloom and despondency, we must regretfully hold that this is not the true key to the difficulties of the section, and must look out for a new and more solidly based theory which will account both for this passage and for the related passages of the Psalter. Nor shall we long look in vain ( 28, v. ; PROPHETIC LIT., 43).

1 EB (') 20 31 ; OTJC(2) 207 / 438.

2 Ed. Dindorf, 1 486.

3 Judaica (1900), pp. 35-39.

4 For the evidence, see col. 2426. That Jerusalem was occupied and severely treated by Ptolemy Lagi, cannot be doubted (cp OPs. 114) ; but Appian's (caSrjpjjicei [katherekei]. makes a very strong demand on our confidence. A much better authority would be required for the theory that the temple itself was destroyed on this occasion.

5 The present writer was the first to accept Robertson Smith's argument in OTJC (') 438 as historically probable (New World, Sept. 1892 ; Founders, 220 ff. , cp Intr. Is. 360 f.). Beer (Indiv. Psalmen, etc., 1894) also adopted the new theory.

24. Gray on royal psalms.[edit]

G. B. Gray's theory of the royal psalms (JQK, July, 1895, pp. 658-686) is an able attempt to show that even those psalms which, in so far as they refer to a king who is neither Yahwe nor a foreigner, may seem to be necessarily pre-exilic, can be explained as post-exilic without resorting to the improbable hypothesis that they refer to an Asmonaean king (or kings).

He thinks that in Pss. 2, 72, 18, 89, 21 the king referred to is an idealisation of the people with reference to its sovereign functions, and that the expressions used in these psalms can only, or at least most satisfactorily, be explained by the circumstances, not of an individual monarch, but of the (royal) nation. In Ps. 61, probably also in Ps. 63, the poet speaks in the name of the nation, and consequently appropriates the term 'king'. Possibly Pss. 20 and 110 may be analogously explained. In Ps. 33 the reference is purely proverbial, and Ps. 45, the interpretation of which is specially difficult, may excusably be left out of account.

This view 1 does but give a sharper outline to a view to which some of the best scholars have been tending - viz. , that the ideal king referred to in certain psalms is a representative and virtually a personification of the people. As the text stands, we find post-exilic Israel spoken of as Yahwe s anointed one in Ps. 28:8, 89:38, 89:51 [89:39, 89:52], Hab. 3:13, {2} and it would have been but a step further to call the people of Israel by the ordinary royal title.

Was this step actually taken ? Hardly, if it be true that there are in the prophetic literature distinct announcements of a future ideal Davidic king. The religious phraseology of the Jews would surely have been thrown into hopeless confusion if 'king' sometimes really meant 'king', and at other times signified 'people'. There were honourable titles enough to give the personified people 'son of Yahwe', 'servant of Yahwe', and even perhaps 'Yahwe's anointed one'. The phrase 'Yahwe's anointed one', if our text is correct in reading it, is specially important, because it is either applied or applicable to any one who has received from God some unique commission of a directly or indirectly religious character ; a in other words, it does not necessarily connote royalty. When we consider that psalms addressed to the king, or relating to the king, had probably come down to our psalmists from pre-exilic times, it is very bold to assume that the psalmists sometimes use the term 'king' as an honorific title for the Jewish people. 4

A problem, however, still remains to be considered. If it be true (as the present writer has provisionally maintained 5 ) that it is only in Pss. 101 and 110 that a historical sovereign is spoken of, how are we to account for the strange addresses in other royal psalms to an as yet non-existent personage, as if he were already on the Messianic royal throne? We must return to this question later (see 34, end).

1 See also Smend, Rel.-gesch. (2) 373-375; Wellh. IJG (3) 207. Smend has now given up the supposed reference of Ps. 2 to Alexander Jannaeus (Rel.-gesch. (1) 384), and holds with Gray.

2 See Psalms in SBOT 176 (cp 164, n. on 87), and Isaiah in the same series, 196.

3 OPs. 338.

4 Toy's clear and instructive essay, 'The king in Jewish post-exilian writings', JBL, 18 [1899] 156-166, does not directly refer to this question.

5 Jew. Rel. Life, 105. A different view is taken in the present article.

25. Psalm heading.[edit]

With regard to the headings of the psalms, no scholar will presume to disparage the work of many generations of learned predecessors. It is high time, however to take a step in advance. The theories at present in circulation have for the most part but little to recommend them. Even a phrase at first sight so transparent as in 7!75 (EV 'of David' ) occasions no slight difficulty.

According to Kei it was the custom of Arabian poets to attach their names to their works. This, however, cannot be shown. The old poets did not write their poems. Each of them had his rawi, or 'reciter', who learned each poem, and transmitted it to others.

Noldeke has shown that late Arabic poems are some times ascribed to ancient writers with an object ; also that narrators would illustrate dry historical narratives by poetical passages of their own composition which they assigned to their heroes. This is true, but does not touch the case of inS, for only by the merest illusion can the so-called Davidic psalms be said to be illustrative of the life of David. It is even more important to observe that the analogy of the titles rnp ja 1 ? (EV 'of the sons of Korah' ) and qoxV (EV 'of Asaph' ) is directly opposed to the theory that 7nS can mean 'composed by David'. (Later writers may have given -m i ? this meaning ; it seems to be distinctly implied by the subscription in 72:20, 'Ended are the prayers of David the son of Jesse'. )

Then, too, how perplexing is the distribution of psalms bearing the title inS ! If, in spite of 72:20, Ps. 101 was regarded as the work of David, how comes it to have been placed amidst psalms which are plainly later than the time of David? 1 It is true, David was regarded in the time of the Chronicler as the founder of the temple services as they were organised in his own time. That, however, does not account for the selection of particular psalms to bear the honourable title 7nS, and as Sanday remarks, 2 we should have expected that the influence of the Chronicler, who (if it be not rather a later editor) ascribes to David a composite psalm made up of three obviously post-exilic psalms, would have been sufficient to bring the name of David into the titles of the three psalms.

Difficulties of this sort might be multiplied. How, for instance, can rtD^B ^i m 72i, mean 'Of Solomon', when clearly the psalm consists of anticipations of the benefits to be enjoyed under some great king s rule? LXX, it is true, renders ei j craXofwJyU.wi [eis salo(oo)men] (i.e., 'with reference to Solomon' ); but what right has it to be thus inconsistent ? And who can say that a perfectly satisfactory explanation has been given of the mysterious jWi V (EV 'of Jeduthun' ), or of the so-called musical notes ?

1 Cp Driver, in Sanday's Oracles of God, 142.

2 O.p. cit. 143.

26. New explanations.[edit]

Now if a step in advance is to be taken, we must not dream that it can be done by the application of the so-called inductive method, for which the Hebrew text of the phrases in the titles is ill-adapted. Our only hope can be from a slow and persistent use of the methods, continually becoming more refined and varied, of critical (as opposed to arbitrary) conjecture. The present writer has for a long time past endeavoured to apply these methods. The following conspectus presents his results so far as relates to the statements in the titles concerning the sources from which the psalms were severally derived and (if this be not a mistake) the liturgical use or performance of the psalms. So far as concerns the historical references mentioned in a number of titles, they will be given separately at the end of this article (45). If the results are negative, they are also positive ; and who can say that the explanations for which, with extreme deliberation, substitutes are offered, are worthy of their place in commentaries and lexicons which are otherwise, even if far from perfect, at any rate neither unprogressive nor unmethodical ?

i. Alamoth, upon (rriSJJjrSy), 46 [49]; Ma'aloth, the (niSysn), and Ma'alloth, for the (nV?y^), 120-134 [ aVin 121]; Mahalath, upon (M^JP/y, 53, and with the addition of Le'annoth 88 ; Nehiloth, upon the (niS mrr^K), 5 ; Solomon, for 72, 127.

All these (for ^y ="? = ?) prohably originated in n7 TO 1 ?;: 1 ? - i.e., of Salmah = b'ne Salmah. In Ps. 9 [3 1 ? niC^j; (see 18) should be nO7w K"337. See (besides MAALOTH, MAHALATH, NEHILOTH) SOLOMON'S SERVANTS [CHILDREN OF], and observe that 127 combines rilSynn and HD?6 ! - i.e. the error and the correction.

The Salmaeans then were a division of the singers. It is true, Salmah is a N. Arabian ethnic ; but the truth probably is that all the divisions bear names indicating cians of N. Arabian extraction. The result, if accepted, is important. The title, 'song of degrees', becomes in consequence transformed into 'Marked : of Salmah', - i.e. officially attested (cp PSALM) as belonging to the Sulrmtan collection. The question as to the relation of the Salmah clan to the Shallum clan (which in Ezra 2:42 is reckoned among the b'ne sho'arim, or rather perhaps the b'ne Ashshiurim ; see 10, Jeduthun) cannot here be considered.

2. Al-tasheth (m&Frhl*), 57-59, 75 and Aijeleth has-shahar [upon] (pnrn nV K VjJ), 22. Probably from rniKH jn K 1 ?, 'Of Ethan the Ezrahite'. See (6) Ethan.

3. Asaph, of ( P |DN 7), 50, 73-83. 'Asaph' is evidently an ethnic name; its proximity to 'Nethinim' (or rather 'Ethanim' ) in Ezra 2:41, etc. and || passages, suggests as its original 'Zarephath', through the intermediate form fPBb (Neh. 7:57; 'oj7, Ezra 2:55). Cp Saph, 2 S. 21:18 ; asaphsuph, Nu. 11:4 (see MULTITUDE, MIXED). 'Abiasaph' perhaps comes from Arab-zarephath ; cp Obed-edom = Arab-edom, 'Abde Shelomoh [see 1] = Arab-salmah. It should be noticed that the title D"n E : Dn, prefixed to r |DN 33 in Ezra 2:41, may originally have been intended to refer to the D lJ C n 33 (rather C T.C N :r), the C rn: (rather C JJVN) a "d the nc^sr 13J; 33 (rather rgsffV 31J7 33>; i.e. , all these clans were devoted to the service of song.

4. David, tf/X" 11 " 1 ^), prefixed to all the psalms of book 2 except 1, 2, 10, 33 (which have no title in MT); to 21 in book 2 ; to 1 in book 3 ; to 2 in book 4 ; and to 17 in book 5 ; in all, to 78. Lagarde says (Orientalia, 2:23), 'Just as English professors can be called 'Margaret', or 'Savilian', or 'Hulsean', etc., so in the tempie choir one division could be named after David, another after Heman, or Korah, or any one else'. l 'It is no objection that some titles refer to events in king David s life, for (1) these appendages are worthless (David had other things to bring before Yahwe than those mentioned - e.g., in Ps. 3), and (2) the headings are unknown to the Syriac, and are therefore not an original part of the collections of psalms' (ibid.). To this it may be added that these appendages have probably been obtained by recasting a misread text, which said something quite different (see g 24), and which, when we get the key, we can plausibly correct, 7n1? (which even Lagarde assumes to be authentic) has most probably come from fllTT 1 ? ( see 13, Loves, song of), which in turn comes from [1JVT7, 'Of Jedithun'. It will be observed that in the titles of Ps. 39 and 62 the two readings, pn17 or |lfflT7 [ "^yJ and "in?, are combined ; also that, in 72:20 "V\ [3 2 (son of Jesse), and in 144:10 TnVIN are presumably later insertions, based on misunderstanding. See 10, Jedithun, of.

5. Degrees, song of. See 1, Ma'aloth, the, and 30, Song.

6. Ethan the Ezrahite, of ( rnmn [IVN 1 ?), 89, and Memorial, to make ? (Tain 1 ?), 38, 70 ( 'to be sung at the presentation of the Azkara' ? 3 - 'to confess [sin] '? 4 ). 'Ethan' and 'Zerah' are both S. Palestinian and N. Arabian clan-names. Why the editor has given us but one Ethanite psalm is a mystery. Probably however, 'Jedithun' (see 10) contains the name 'Ethan'. See also 2, Al-tasheth and Aijeleth hash-shahar upon, and 26 Shemonith, on the. See ETHAN.

7. Gittith, upon the (n R;in*7j, ), 8, 81, 84. Corrupt ; perhaps from n J IDS ri"7j7. See 30, Sheminith, upon the.

8. Heman the Ezrahite, of ( r?? Rp O^) 88. See 6, 18, also HEMAN.

9. Higgaion (p 3,1), 9:16 [9:17], followed by nho (Selah), and 92:3 [92:4], followed by 'upon the lyre'. Corrupt (see HIGGAION); it is not a technical term at all.

10. Jedi(u)thun, of, or upon (pm S, 39; pjYIT^j;, 62; pJVT Vj?, 77) Jedithun may come from 'Arab-ethan (cp JEDUTHUN)or less probably from Jerimoth (niC"v) = Jeremoth = Jerahmeel. In 1 Ch. 25:4, 'Jerimoth' is one of the sons of Heman. Obed-edom, or rather 'Arab-edom [or -aram = jerahmeel?], appears in 1 Ch. 16:38 as the son of a Jeduthun. The b'ne Jeduthun were, according to 1 Ch. 16:42, 'at the gate' (1JW ?) - i,e., 'door-keepers', 0"1J, B - but there is evidently some misunderstanding connected with these door-keepers, and perhaps the original title of the b'ne Jeduthun, as well as of the b'ne Shallum (Ezra 2:42) was Dns K, 'Asshurites' = 'Geshurites' (cp 1, end). In 1 Ch. 26:14 the same Obed-edom is represented as a Korahite (i.e., Jerohamite?) ; see 1. Observe

  • (1) that in 39 and 62 JWT7 or pniT-Vy is followed by the false reading 7n1? ;
  • (2) that in the headings of 18 and 36 ,-|l,V nap*? ( 'of the servant of Yahwe' ) is a corruption of pn T? (|| 7n1?);
  • (3) that in the heading of 100 pn T? has become rnin 1 ? ;
  • (4) that Ps. 70 (71) in LXX's Hebrew text had the double heading -\rb and pm 33 1 ? (.viutv HavaSafi [nioon ioonadab]).

On HTT in 45 see 13 ; on nny in 60, 80 see 28. Cp 4, David, of.

1 Lagarde's view of 'David' as a choir named after David is accepted by Zenner (Zt. f. kath. Theol. 15 [1891] 361-362). Against it see Konig, EM. 395, who is content to explain 7 in in 1 ? as the ^ auctoris, remarking that LXX not only has (i/mA^ios [psalmos]) T(2 AaiuS [to david] (3:1, etc.), but also roO A. [ton A.] (26:1 etc.), quite apart from the differences of MSS (37:1, 86:1).

2 The author of this interpolation must have seen in Ps. 72 a prayer of David for Solomon.

3 So Delitzsch and Raethgen.

4 Jacob, ZATW 18:52, 18:63+ (similarly in 1 Ch. 16:4 ).

11. Jonath-elem-rehokim , upon (O prn D^N nJV^J?), 56. That njV^V comes from jnj jrVy (cp 54-55, 61 and see 20, Neginoth, upon) may be taken as fairly certain. The interpretation of Q prn D7N was affected by the view taken of the difficult ni 327 (now at length explained with high probability ; see 19). If the explanations of -in and nip given here (nos. 4 and 12) are accepted, it will be difficult not to recognise underneath O prn D7X the phrase DTPpn ^K = [7Nl->nV7> 'of Jerahmeel', which is virtually synonymous with the phrase which follows, - in1?, i e., pn T7 = mD T7 (see 10).

12. Korah, of the sons of (nip 33 1 ?), 42 44-49 84/1 87 f. KORAH (q. v.) is a southern clan-name. The true name, however, of this guild of singers was probably Dm 33 (as if cm 33, 'sons of Jeroham', but really shortened from 7NBnT 33, 'sons of Jerahmeel' ). cm was distorted (popularly?) into D mp- See 2 Ch. 20:19, where, although the D nnpn 33 and the J3 D mpn are apparently distinguished, we can hardly doubt (consistently with the principles of textual criticism we are applying) that D nnpn ar >d D rnpn are both corruptions of the same name - i.e., [VxlcnT- D mpn occurs only once again, viz., in 1 Ch. 126, where it interrupts the list of names, and has evidently come in from the margin, where it stood as a variant to cm in the phrase '7' ']] (v. 7 end). On the possible misconception at the root of the Chronicler's statements as to Korahite doorkeepers, see PORTERS, and cp 10, Jedithun.

13. Loves, song of (HTT TB), 45. Shir and Jedidoth are brought together by a mistake ; nTT is a corruption either of pn T 1 ?, 'of Jedithun' 1 or of nb T7, 'of Jerimoth' (from which name 'Jedithun 'comes). In either case, we may compare the heading of Ps. 56, where D pm (D mp), i-e-, DHTi and in are combined. {2} See 30, Song.

14. Mahalath, upon. See 1.

15. Maschil. See 19.

16. Michtam (DJJ3p), 16, 56-60. Perhaps from pjm-l, 'supplication' (13 = 0; n = 3); cp ri33n, 30:1 (title), from njnri. See MlCHTAM.

17. Moses the man of God, of (c .t ?N,TE"X ntJ D 1 ?), in 90. According to Sa'adya, ndD?=nE D 33 7, 'of the sons of Moses' = 'of the Levites' (1 Ch. 28:14). But the text is corrupt.. Most probably HE S 1 ? comes not from noVc l?]. as we might at first suppose (cp i), but from CW1, 'marked' (see 24, Psalm) ; and D nVxn B"N from miNn [O n 1 ?, 'of Heman the Ezrahite' (see 8). D rpH tTN is due to a remodelling editor, who had before him a corrupt text, and made sense of it by the light of Dt. 33:1, C rt^N B"N nC D 113 ~ie?K M3n3n. Ps. 90b has in fact two points of contact (vv. 13b, 15), not indeed with Dt. 33, but with Dt. 32.

18. Muth-labben, upon (J3 1 ? TOD 1 ?!?), 9. Most probably from no7w 337, 'of the sons of Salmath'. See i.

19. Musician, to the chief (rjJUO 1 ?), in 55 headings, and in Hab. 3:19. 3 Probably from |35?pS, 'as a thing deposited' = 'to be laid up in store' (an Aramaism). Maschil ( ^ 3^ 2), in fifteen psalms (see MASCHIL), seems to be another corruption of the same word. The significance of the fact that LXX gives for rV^IslS [to the chief musician] fiS TO reAos [eis to telos], and has evidently no idea of a possible use of the verb nx3 in a musical connection, is not perhaps generally recognized. *

1 So already Staerk (ZATW 12:136), with n TT (2 S. 12:25) as an alternative original.

2 It will be remarked that according to our results 'Jerimoth' (cp 10) and 'Jeroham' both come from 'Jerahmeel'.

3 According to Nestle (ZA Tl^ ZO [1900] 167 /.), the technical note in Hab. 3:19 is properly the heading of the next psalm in the collection from which this psalm was taken.

4 Driver, in a communication to Sanday (see the latter's Oracles of God, 146), says, 'I doubt greatly whether much weight is to be attached to the ignorance of the LXX. The LXX, in all parts of their translation . . . are apt to stand apart from the Palestinian tradition ; they frequently show themselves to be unfamiliar not only with uncommon or ex ceptional words, but even with those which one would have expected to be well known'. He illustrates this from n!H, the verb of which niUD (according to Driver, 'precentor' ) is the participle. 'It is hardly possible that a word familiarly known in Palestine circa 300 B.C., and (in its musical connection) retained in use in the temple services, should have had its meaning forgotten there during the period of one to two centuries which may have elapsed between 300 B.C. and the date at which the LXX translation of the Chronicles and Ezra was made ; yet the translators of these books have evidently no idea of its meaning when used in that connection'. It is admitted, however, that there is no passage in Ezra, and but one in Chronicles, in which ns: is used with reference to music, and though Driver says that in 1 Ch. 15:21 the LXX 'show themselves to be entirely unacquainted with the meaning of the verb', it does not appear that modern philology has succeeded in showing what TO:? means. BDH states that JTrCtrrr 1 ?^ 1111333!

7 means, 'over the bass voices, leading them with i7frus'.

But since ']3 is separated from ]7 by n 3 DB H, and since no proof ot the sense 'bass voices' for rt 3 CC ca n be adduced, we may venture to question this interpretation which neither of the two other standard Hebrew Lexicons ratifies. Siegfried-Stade rightly questions the text. Aziel and Shemiramoth have probably been wrongly inserted under the corrupt forms, Azaziah and Sheminith, respectively ; H!f3^ should be HJU? ( = TCH, 16e). See SHEMINITH. The LXX therefore do not deserve the imputation of ignorance of the meaning of rji 3 in a musical connection, because the word has not yet been proved to have a special musical sense (for an ingenious but very far-fetched suggestion, see Ges.-Buhl); and the fact that they substitute rmS (see MUSICIAN, THE CHIEF) for rtSJcS suggests that the translator, whose aloofness from Palestine may be exaggerated, knew that there was no real Palestinian tradition on the subject! The Cimmerian darkness can only be mitigated by critical conjecture. A possible and suitable one is offered above.

20. Neginoth, on (n l3 333), 4, 6, 54-55, 67, 76, Hab. 3:19 (with superfluous ' attached), and once (61) on Neginath (nrjjTT J?). In 6 ni3 333 is followed by ivyptr. yty. Both words, Neginoth and Sheminith, may be regarded as corruptions of the same original (see 26, Sheminith, upon).

21. Nehiloth, on the. See 1.

22. Praise (n^nn), 145. Cp v. 21.

23. Prayer (n^SB), 17, 86, 90, 102, 142. Cp 72:20.

24. Psalm (liDtp), in the titles of 56 psalms. Probably from Diw7, 'marked', i.e., attested by an official statement. See PSALM.

25. Selah (nVo), 71 times, also in Hab. 3:3, 3:9, 3:13, and (S<.di/<aAfia [diapsalma]) Ps. Sol. 17:31, 18:10. Perhaps from D?B*/, 'for complementing, supplementing', whence perhaps Tg.'s po jj; ?, Aq.'s aet [aei]. Very often n*?D may be regarded as a corruption of some word which is an integral portion of the psalm. See SELAH.

26. Sheminith, on the (m pE rr 1 ?!?), 6, 12. Probably from D JrTN 1 ? [of the Ethanites] (N, imperfectly written, having been confounded with I?). The Ethanim, under the disguise of 'Nethinim', appear in Ezra 2:58, etc. (see Ainer. Journ. of Theol. July, 1901). Possibly too nsts n DV 1 ? in 92 should be read D jn xS 'of the Ethanites'. Note the ascriptions of Pss. 88-90 (see 17). It is not decisive against this view that LXX assigns Ps. 92 to the Sabbath ; LXX also assigns other psalms to the other days of the week (except Tuesday and Thursday) ; see 16. See also 7, 11, 20, 28).

27. Shiggaion (p 31?), 7, plur. in Hab. 3:1. A corruption of n 3 CE ( 3 = D), Sheminith ; see 26.

28. Shoshannim, upon (O WZ -ty), 45, 69 ; Shoshannim-'eduth, upon (nn}7 D Scte -Vx), 80; Shushan-'eduth, upon QVVT^y nnj/), 60. Probably 'Shoshannim' and 'Shushan' are corruptions of 'Sheminith' (see 26), and 'eduth' of 'Jedithun' (see 10).

29. Solomon, of. See i1.

30. Song (T!?), in the titles of 30 psalms, also (iu5ij) in Ps. Sol. 15. 17 (titles). Another corruption (see 24, Psalm) of CWn, marked.

31. To bring to remembrance, or To make memorial O Sinp). See 6.

32. To teach O?/ j), 60, and in 2 S. 1:18. Either a corrupt dittogram of in ?, or miswritten for ^KDnT 1 ?, a phrase synonymous with niO l S ( C P 4)-

27. Guilds of singers.[edit]

One conclusion from the above emendations (26) will be that the history of the development of the guilds of singers nas been written with an attempt at undue precision. That the singers originally called b'ne Asaph (but cp 2 Ch. 20:19 {1] ) gradually split up into many families, some of which called themselves with special emphasis b'ne Asaph, others b'ne Jedithun, others b'ne Heman, 2 is a conjecture entirely based on the traditional Hebrew text. There is no reason why there should not have been from the very beginning of the services in the second temple, several guilds of singers (Neh. 11:17 LXX{BNA] scarcely justifies us in limiting the number to two ; see BAKBAKKAR, BAKBUKIAH). Their names may have varied somewhat ; but whichever names are preferred, they are always (when closely examined) clan-names of S. Palestine or N. Arabia. One might be inclined to surmise that the latest of the names borne by any of these guilds was Salmah, or b'ne Salmah ; the reason would be the occurrence of the group of Salmah songs (EV 'songs of degrees' ) in book 5, and the very late collection called i/ o.X/uol ZoXo/xtDcros [psalmoi soloomontos] (i.e. , perhaps originally [see 26 (1)] ncSb niVnn, 'praise-songs of Salmah' ). But we must not be too positive as to this. Pss. 9-10, according to one of the statements in the title, belonged to the b'ne Salmah ( 26 (1), and it is not improbable that ncSf Se D (EV 'Proverbs of Solomon' ) in Prov, 10:1, 25:1 originally meant 'Proverbs of Salmah' ; besides, in Ezra 2, etc. (emended text), the Salmaeans are co-ordinated with the Ethanites. Ethanites, we say, for we can hardly doubt that 'Nethinim', both in Ezra 2 and wherever else it occurs, is a distortion of 'Ethanim', and not only 'Ethan' the eponym of the clan has two psalms ascribed to him (and probably many more, see 26 [10]), but the Ethanim or Ethanites, are mentioned, it would seem, in the titles of two other psalms (see 26 [26]). Nor must we overlook the fact that what we have suggested as the right meaning of no^ir, find in some cases the reading, had been forgotten, at any rate among the Jewish scholars of Alexandria, as early as the time of LXX. As to the phrase 'the sons of Asaph' (= Asaph in the psalm-titles), that Asaph should sometimes (in Ch., Ezra., Neh. ) represent all the bands of singers, and ultimately be described (see ABIASAPH) as of Korahite affinities, need not surprise us. 'Asaphite' and 'Korahite', 'Zarephathite' and 'Jerahmeelite' being in their origin virtually synonymous, a vagueness in the genealogical statements was only to be expected.

1 The present narrative, 2 Ch. 20, appears to have been altered from an older narrative (cp NEGEB, 7).

2 Koberle, Die Tempelsanger im Alten Test. (1899), 150.

3 Thus 35:21b and 25 are parallel to Lam. 2:1b.

28. Historical backgrounds.[edit]

Proceeding now, after dealing with these preliminary questions (22-27), to take a survey of the Psalter, we begin by taking specimens from different parts of it, with the object of getting a historical point of view, and select 35, 42-43, 44, 60, 74, 79, 83, 120, 137.

i. Psalm 35. Psalm 35 is one of a group of psalms which are parallel both in tone and even in some phraseological details 3 to the Lamentations and to the Jeremianic Literature. Now Lamentations 4, 5 (see LAMENTATIONS, 7-8) presuppose that either in the present or in the not distant past the Jewish people has been insulted and oppressed by the Jerahmeelites or Edomites. We have found reason to think that the N. Arabian leaders were principals in the siege and capture of Jerusalem and the captivity of the Jews, and that even during the Persian period and after there had been a return of many of the captives in Edom, the Edomites continued to commit outrages, to annoy, to plunder, and to oppress the pious Jewish community in Palestine. We could not be surprised to find evidence of this state of things in the psalms, and as a fact we find it. In 35:1, underlying very doubtful Hebrew, we find 'the Arabians' and 'the host of Jerahmeel'. 1 In vv. 11-12:

'The Jerahmeelites vent their rage upon me, | the Ishmaelites plunder me.
The Rehobothites requite me with evil, | they bring calamity upon me'. 2

In v. 15b :

'Those of Jerahmeel surround me, | they cry, We have swallowed him up. 3

In v. 19 :

'Let not the Jerahmeelites rejoice, | the men of strife' 4 (cp 68, 31:6, 120:7, below).

ii. Psalms 42-43. - In Pss. 42-43, the real or imaginary background is also the oppression, not of the Babylonians (as Theodore of Mopsuestia) but of the Jerahmeelites. We find mentioned the 'tribe of the Arabians' and the 'race of the Jerahmeelites' {5} (42:7, 43:1). The speaker is apparently in the Jerahmeelite - i.e. , Edomite - region to the S. of Judaea, where Yahwe was not acknowledged (cp 2 Ch. 25:14, 25:20). Speaking in the name of a larger or smaller company, he craves the divine guardianship and to be restored to his true home - the house of God.

iii. Psalm 44. - Ps. 44 is composite; {6} 44a is apparently the first part of a poetical retrospect of Israel's ancient history (cp 78) ; 44b is a prayer of the innocent martyr-nation. The Davidic king has been set aside, and further resistance has become hopeless. Many of the Jews have been killed or carried captive by Jerahmeel ; others seek refuge where they can. Yet Israel is true - sincerely true - to its religious obligations ; it is indeed its strictness in this respect that so exasperates its foes. How can Yahwe be angry with his people? The real or assumed background, therefore, is not the time of Hezekiah and Sennacherib(cp Lagarde, Mittheil. 2:377), nor that of the Syrian persecution (Baethgen, etc. , after Theodore of Mopsuestia) but that of the (Jerahmeelite) exile (see above), soon after the fall of the Davidic dynasty. The psalm is one of a large group of psalms, united by parallelism of contents, but is related most closely to Ps. 60 and 89b, the former of which we have next to consider.

iv. Psalm 60. - Ps. 60 has been thought to be composite e.g., most recently (1891) by Winckler (GI 2:205), who, like Ewald, thinks he can recognise a pre-exilic element in the psalm. The inconsistencies of the psalm, however, are illusory, and, as to the date, though MT strongly suggests the early Maccabaean period, the present writer's text-critical results make him certain that the oppressors spoken of are N. Arabian. The first stanza reminds us of Ps. 44b, the second of 2 and 18 (see below) ; the third of 89b. We can only quote stanza 2, referring for the rest to Ps. {2}

For with thee I shall break Geshur,
I shall divide Cusham and Maacath ;
I shall measure out Missur and Aram,
I shall cast the cord upon Zarephath.
Yahwe will conduct me to Missur,
Yahwe will lead me unto Aram. 1

1 Read 7XOn7' n]nwO | O']7yO ']7OW. ]'7' is recognised by LXX here, but not in Is. 49:25, Jer. 18:19. On5 (Kal) is presupposed by LXX both here and in 56:2-3. Both y*' and On7 may fitly be questioned in the present passage (and On7 also in 56:2-3); see Ps. {2}

2 For DSD nj? read D ^NDnT ; and for read D^NJO^ . J^NC* should be flW> , and 7l3C> should be iT etoa

3 Read lllttgVs ?1O3 Jnn3 7NDITV \J3.

4 Read JHD B^N D StfDnT WWfc^J.

5 On the very singular corruption, or editorial manipulation, see Ps.(2).

6 Cp G. A. Barton's article in Amer. Journ. of Theol. (3) [1899] pp. 744+), which recognises the composite character of the psalm, and distinguishes three strophes, representing (this is the weak part of the theory) three widely separated periods.

7 On the very interesting corruptions see Ps.{2} D> > in ll. 5 and 6, is a fragment of o-nSx, which, as usual in these psalms, has displaced m,-p- Winckler, GI 2:205, has not observed this.

v. Psalm 74. - Ps. 74 is variously assigned to the Chaldaean period ( 'everlasting ruins', v. 3a ; 'have set on fire thy sanctuary', v. 7a) and to the Syrian or Maccabaean ( 'the synagogues', v. 8; 'no more any prophet', v. 9 ; 'blaspheme thy name', v. 10). Of the phrases on which respectively the two theories are based, only that in v. 7a and that in v. 10 remain in the present writer's revised text. Whether the Babylonian warriors felt sufficient bitterness against Judah to blaspheme the name of Yahwe, may be reasonably doubted ; it was quite otherwise with the Jerahmeelites or Edomites whom (as also perhaps in Ps. Sol. 2, see 42) we believe we can recognise in this psalm. There is nothing said in the context about the defeat of Jewish armies (cp 44:11, 89;44); but the couplet which not improbably underlies v. 3-

Hide thy poor from the wickedness of their neighbours,
The Jerahmeelites, the Arabians, and the Geshurites, -

may probably be explained by 2 K. 24:2, where, according to a critically emended text, the enemies mentioned seem to be the Cushites, the Jerahmeelites, and the Misrites, combined with Jer. 39:3, where, originally, the princes named were those of the king of Jerahmeel (see NERGAL-SHAREZER). 'The synagogues' in v. 8 should most probably be changed to 'the name of Israel' 1 (let us sweep away from the land). On the complaint, 'there is no prophet' (v. 9), see col. 2207. That the historical background is imaginary, seems very probable (see col. 2207). We now see what must be the true explanation of Is. 63:7-64:12 [63:7-64:11]. The inserted passage (vv. 12-17) reminds us of 89:12. Is. 51:9.

vi. Psalm 79. - In 1 Macc, 7:17, Ps. 79:2-3 are applied to the massacre of sixty leading ASSIDAEANS by ALCIMUS, and the phraseology of 1 Macc. 1:37 (/cai ^e\eav al/J-a ddi2ov KVK\I{) rov ayidff /mros /cat e/j.o\vvav TO aylaff/j-a) seems to be suggested by vv. 1-2 of this psalm. This does not, however, prove that the psalm was known to have been composed during the Syrian persecution. In spite of Hitzig's attempt to show that it cannot have reference to the capture of Jerusalem in 586 B.C., it is perfectly safe to explain it as referring to this, even if we incline to think that in this and the related psalms the historical background is an imaginary one. To deny that there was any slaughter of the Jews 'round about Jerusalem', and that any other neighbours but the Chaldaeans were considered to have afflicted the Jews at this period, is very bold. At any rate, after our revision of the texts, we are precluded from assenting to Hitzig. See 44:23 'For thy sake Jerahmeel has killed us', 2 and the passage referred to above (2 K. 24:2) as to the hostile 'neighbours' of the Jews. This psalm, however, is far inferior to 74, and has somewhat the appearance of an imitation.

vii. Psalm 83. - Ps. 83 has been commonly explained by the light of 1 Macc. 5, though Kimhi, Calvin, Delitzsch, and Lagarde, with what may now at length be recognised as remarkable insight, prefer to explain by 2 Ch. 20, and Robertson Smith, as we have seen, refers the psalm to the time of Artaxerxes Ochus. If, however, we apply to the difficulties of the text the critical processes which we have used elsewhere, the real or supposed occasion of the psalm becomes manifest. It is the banding of the N. Arabian peoples together (cp Ps. 59) - first to harass, and then to destroy the very existence of Israel - between about 602 and 586 B.C., of which the narrative in 2 Ch. 20 may have been like an anticipation, 1 that is meant. 'Asshur' and 'Geshur' are constantly confounded, and 'Amalek' is only one of the common distortions of 'Jerahmeel'.

viii. Psalm 120. - Ps. 120 is admittedly no pilgrim-song. According to Baethgen, it is the record of a time when the party of apostates fanned strife and sedition in Jerusalem, with pernicious consequences for the righteous. Rather it is the sigh of a band of exiles in the land of Jerahmeel (cp 42-43). vv. 4-5. should not improbably run thus :

Arrows of a warrior are the tongues | of the folk of Jerahmeel :
Woe is me that I sojourn in Cusham, | beside the dwellings of Jerahmeel. 2

ix. Psalm 137. - According to Duhm, Ps. 137 was originally a folk-song, which arose among some Jews who had fled or migrated from Babylonia not very long after the destruction of Jerusalem. Budde, too (New World, 2 [1893]), infers from the metre that it was a folk-song, and consequently dates it early in the exile. But why the pentameter (Kina-metre) should indicate a folk-song is not at all clear ; Ps. 35 is no folk-song, but it is in pentameters. Nor could a folk-song have contained such a glaring inconsistency the enemy in vv. 1-6, 8-9 being Babylon, but in v. 7 Edom - or have described the scene in such an improbable and scarcely intelligible manner (vv. 1-2). The psalm is cleared up by the view that *?33, as in Gen. 10:10, Jer. 39:3, is a corruption of ^RDITVi so that the opening verse becomes :

On the heritage (nVru) of Jerahmeel we wept, | remembering Zion

and v. 8 (with other emendations) :

'To thee also, O house of Jerahmeel, | plunderers shall come ;
Jacob shall uproot thee, and shall overthrow | all thy palaces'. 3

This must be a near approximation to the truth. The background here, as elsewhere, is imaginary.

1 ^N HJflD is a very improbable phrase for the 'synagogues'. 1J?1 JV3 (Sota 9:15) is a synonym for HD33 JV3, which certainly does not mean 7K "^ "^i 'God's meeting-place' ; indeed Tg. gives KntM3 3 for the BJjn JV3 of MT in Jer. 39:8. is the most obvious correction ; but the obvious is often not the true. Having regard to 83:5 [83:4], we should most probably read DtJ* VNIJi". The enemy's ultimate object was to destroy, not sanctuaries, but worshippers. isijj> has probably come from comes from a misplaced is 1 ?. See further Ps. (2).

2 nn for omrVa

Royal psalms.[edit]

We may now approach other psalms with the right key in our hands - viz. , the well-grounded theory that the bitterness of so many psalmists and the despondency of still more was caused by the cruel conduct of the Edomites and their neighbours towards the Jews, of which in the concrete we have hitherto formed a very insufficient idea. Let us now return to the royal psalms, 5 viz., 2, 18, 20, 21, (28), 45, 61, 63, 72, (84), (89), (101), (110), (132), to which 1 S. 2:1-10 may be added.

1 The original story has been altered, owing either to mere texlual corruption, or to a misinterpretation of history ; or to both. Originally it was probably a Jerahmeelite and Misrite invasion that was meant.

2 Winckler's restoration of the text (AOFZ^ij) is very unsatisfactory.


D V?s : n irw; | SKCITV rva ?iS-D3
1 ^5 n-roc | j rm 3 p.v: *&~Pi

4 Compare above, 23.

5 The numbers enclosed in parentheses are those of psalms in which the word -jSn does not occur.


fis j?
nm Dhnn
29. First, 2, 18, and 110.[edit]

i. Psalms 2, 18 and 110. - Pss. 2, 18 and 110 have a specially intimate connection ; the details of this depend somewhat upon our views of textual readings, but the fact of the connection itself cannot be set aside. Let us take first of all the description of the king s warlike energy. Even if we compare 2:8-9, 18:30-49, 110:5-7 only in MT, we find in all these passages the same extra-ordinary fierceness which will not stop short of destroying the enemy and establishing an extensive Jewish empire. Until we critically emend the text, however, we do not understand this fierceness, this inhumanity. Ps. 2:8-9 runs thus in a text which has been slowly, methodically, and at last with much confidence revised, -

'Ask (this) of me, and I will give thee
The nations as thine inheritance,
The land s utmost parts as thy possession.
Thou shall subvert Zarephath and Geshur,
Thou shall beat down Jerahmeel and Missur'. 6

With equal clearness the much-misunderstood author of Ps. 18 reveals the secret of his bitterness. The whole passage referred to above would be too much to quote ; but here is one of the stanzas (vv. 44-46, 49c) :

44a Thou didst deliver me from the folk of the Arabians,
49c Thou didst rescue me from the men of Maacah ;
44b Thou madest me the head of the nations,
44c People whom I knew not became my servants ;
45b The sons of Gebal sought me eagerly,
45a The Ishmaelites became obedient unto me ;
46a They Brought frankincense and gold,
46b They offered chains of choice gold.

Now we see why, as the speaker says elsewhere, he beat his foes 'as small as the dust of the market-place', and 'swept them away as the mire of the streets' (v. 43). It was because of the divine law that men of loyalty should receive the reward of their loyalty, and the proud and violent the retribution of their lawlessness (vv. 24-27 [25-28]). The men of loyalty are the Jews ; the proud and violent are expressly identified with the Arabians and the Ishmaelites.

Not less fierce is the language of Ps. 110, nor does the ordinary text suggest any palliating considerations. Probably no psalm makes equally heavy demands on the textual critic. Applying our key, however, we seem to see that Ps. 110 is based on that earlier narrative which probably underlies our Gen. 14 (see MELCHIZEDEK, SODOM AND GOMORRAH), and represented the battle of the kings as fought near Kadesh, and the chief of the kings opposed to the king of Sodom as the king of Jerahmeel. To the psalmist this ancient exploit of the divinely favoured Abram was a type of the still greater exploit of Yahwe himself in destroying the people which had so cruelly oppressed the Jews. An approximate view of the original text is, -

5 The Lord will shatter Jerahmeel * \ in the day of his wrath,
6a He will judge mighty kings | for the treason of their pride.
6b [The Lord] will smite Geshur- | on the land of the Arabians ;*
The kings of Rehoboth 4 he will destroy, | the princes of Jerahmeel. 5

Is any one of these three psalms a royal psalm, as referring either to a contemporary king or prince (such as Alexander Jannreus of whom Hitzig and Smend 6 have thought) or to the Messianic king himself?

(a) Psalm 2. - Certainly Ps. 2 is not. The antithesis throughout is between Yahwe and his people on the one hand, and the Jerahmeelites on the other. Partly through accidental corruption of the text, partly through editorial manipulation, Ps. 2 was made into a psalm of the Messianic king.

In the course of a thorough search for the underlying original text in tTO 'his anointed' and ^SQ 'my king' naturally attract suspicion. IIVC D has probably arisen out of ITDf! (similarly in 20:7a [20:6a], 28:8, 84:10 [84:9], 89:52 [89:51], 105:15), and the words, so difficult to translate satisfactorily, D^D TIDDJ JKI (v. 6), should probably be Vciy VniSiyD ^jn, 'on his dwelling-place he has mercy'. The reason is (1) that D^p (v. 2) and C ^Vp (v. 10) are certainly corrupt (read C SxDnT 'Jerahmeelites' ), and (2) that the reading suggested makes the last couplet of stanza ii. correspond to the last of stanza i., which should probably run, -

Let us beat down their sanctuaries,
Let us destroy their palaces.

1 Sn^nT several times underlies pa. Here it is latent in -rc Sy.

2 Underlying c N>

3 Concealed under n3T-

4 Underlying 7113.

5 Dittographed, and underlying p-7jj and C T-

6 In Rel.-gesch.(^) 385: but Smend now holds the people of Israel to be the 'king' referred to.

7 In support of this view we must not refer to the phrase 'of the servant of Yahwe' in the title, for ,-pn -\y^>, tyere, as in 36:1 (see 25 [10]), is corrupt.

(b) Psalm 18. - Can we pronounce a different verdict on Ps. 18? It is natural to think that the psalm is a dramatic utterance of David, and that its exaggerations are to be viewed as virtual predictions of a future son (or future sons) of David, who shall raise his kingdom to a height never attained by the historical David (so OPs. 206). This is the view expressed in the liturgical appendix (v. 51 [50], unless c is a later addition), but is nevertheless wrong. The pious community is the 'speaker', as is plain from the otherwise far too bold assertion of legal righteousness, and the Deuteronomistic phraseology employed.

It is true, the speaker is equally lx>ld in the assertion of a reward already received for his righteousness. But a poet and a fervent believer in the promises can take this imaginative license. The warlike energy claimed is not more surprising in this psalm than in Ps. 2:9, or than in 149:6, where we learn that faithful Jews (c TOn) will know (by supernatural teaching?) how to wield a two-edged sword. There is no need, be it said in passing, to bring such psalms down to the Maccabaean period. The bitterness against the Edomites seems to have been perennial, and as they were probably types of all hostile peoples fresh occasion for vehement psalms was always arising.

The Davidic origin of Ps. 18 has been thought (e.g. , by Delitzsch, Baethgen, Kbnig, and Kirkpatrick) to be guaranteed by the occurrence of the psalm (with varia tions of reading) in 2 S. 22, a passage which, together with the mashal in 23:1-7, forms probably, as Budde rightly states, the latest addition to the Books of Samuel. 1 When the hymn in question was appended to 2 S. , a liturgical appendix (v. 51) referring to Yahwe's anointed king and to David and his descendants had already been attached ; and the original title had been partly corrupted, partly deliberately altered, so as to make the hymn suit as an illustration of the life of David. The true text of the title (when emended according to the analogy of other titles, see 45 ; cp 12) makes no reference whatever to David. A Davidic, and even, more generally, a pre-exilic date is excluded by the idealistic religious and political out look in vv. 32, 44, 50, by the Deuteronomic view of the covenant in vv. 21-28 and the Deuteronomic expressions in vv. 22-24, and by the points of contact between the psalm and the so-called song and blessing of Moses, Dt. 32-33. For it took time for the ideas and language of Deuteronomy (which, moreover, is no longer in its original form) to affect religious literature. The psalm, however, appears to be of earlier date, not only than Pss. 116 and 144, Prov. 30 (v. 5), and Hab. 3 (v. 19), but also than Is. 55 (v. 5), unless, indeed, we hold (this theory has much to recommend it) that Is. 55:3-5 is a very late insertion, made after Ps. 18 had become misinterpreted as a triumphal song of David. References to the Jerahmeelites and Arabians in stanzas 13 and 14 complete the parallelism between the second part of Ps. 18 and Ps. 2 (revised text).

(c) Psalm 110. - Ps. 110 remains. Is this a royal psalm? If so, who is the king or prince referred to? Bickell and G. Margoliouth 2 independently have noticed that vv. 1-4 (beginning with ac*) form an acrostic with the name jyae*; the rest of the acrostic apparently was lost, the text of the psalm being mutilated and otherwise in disorder.

The present writer has shown 3 that, if the text is correct, any other Jewish sovereign but Simon the Maccabee is hardly conceivable as the subject of the psalm ; on the acrostic, however, it would be unwise to lay any stress, 4 for nothing is easier, but nothing more hazardous, than to discover or imagine such acrostics. If the psalm was addressed to Simon, we can plausibly account for its imperfect form ; the omission of the latter part may have arisen out of a desire to facilitate a Messianic reference. 5 The view is plausible ; but pis *aSo rrOTSj? (v- 4^) has not been perfectly explained, and fTDPaSo in Gen. 14 is explained elsewhere (see MELCHIZEDEK) as a corrupt reading.

Using the experience which long converse with the text of the psalm ought to give, we arrive at the reading (for v. 4b), 'I establish thee for ever, because of my covenant of loving-kindness' (see MELCHIZEDEK). To whom is this oracle addressed ? Evidently to the same person as the promise of the subjugation of his enemies. The defeat of the king of Jerahmeel was a prophecy of the overthrow of all subsequent enemies, provided of course that the children of Abram displayed their father's character. Must not, then, the true subject of the psalm be Abram? 1 On this, however, we lay far less emphasis than on the previous results. All that we can assert with confidence is that the psalm is not a royal one. If the text of v. $a is correct, it predicts the perpetuity of a priesthood ; if an appeal be made to 'Melchizedek', we reply that even Duhm, who accepts v. 4a, is prevented by his critical conscience from accepting v. 4b, except after cancelling the interpolated (?) 'Melchizedek', and that if he had listened to his linguistic conscience he must have questioned the prosaic and ambiguous rnaTty- But though the original psalm is neither royal nor Maccabaean, we may plausibly conjecture that the text was edited and conjecturally restored in early Maccabaean times with reference to Simon.

1 To assert with Cornill (Einl.M 107) that Ps. 18 was taken into the Psalter from 2 S. seems not very judicious.

2 See the instructive correspondence in the Academy for 1892.

3 OPs. 21-29.

4 Duhm (on Ps. 110) and Marti (Jesaia, 242) think otherwise.

5 Che. Jew. Rel. Life, 105.

30. Secondly Ps. 20-21.[edit]

ii. Psalms 20-21. - Pss. 20 and 21 may also conceivably have been edited and partly recast in Maccabaean times. We might thus account for the vehemence which deforms Ps. 21, {2] and which, unless our well-tested principles of textual criticism are altogether at fault, did not appear in the same intensity in the original psalm. Christian psalms, indeed, they are not; but the bitterness is not so excessive as has been imagined, and can be accounted for by the extreme provocation given to the Jews by the Edomites. The fifth quatrain of Ps. 21 and the first half of the sixth should probably run nearly as follows :-

'Thou wilt put an end to the Rehobothites and the Ishmaelites ;
Thy presence, O Yahwe ! will annihilate them.
The Zarephathites thou wilt make to perish from the land,
And the Misrites from the face of the ground.
Yea, thou wilt put an end to the Aramites and the Cushites,
The Rehobothites thou wilt rebuke to their face'. 3

When Pss. 20 and 21 are looked at as wholes, it becomes plain that the speaker ought, in accordance with parallels elsewhere, to be the pious community, whose salvation in time of trouble brings joy to each and all of its members (20:6a), and who can permissibly be described both as a person and as a collection of persons (20:10a and b ; 20:6, 21:2).

The only objection is drawn from ^78n1 in 20:10 [20:9] and 1]^Q in 21:2 [21:1], from inO in 20:7 [20:6], and perhaps from the 7'p rnaj; in 21:4 [21:3]. But the rt in "^Cn is dittographed ; 75O is a corruption of -py (cp y and *? in the Palmyrene script), and in trD as in 2:2 of iTDf! (cp also, especially, 28:8-9). As for the 'crown of choice gold', it means no more than what is said in 8:6 [8:5], 'with glory and state didst thou crown him'.

1 "yiN 1 ? s most unlikely. Since i and i are scarcely distinguishable, and <j and 53 are constantly confounded, we may provisionally read CT^N 1 ?, and continue THDTTTD [ibpbl. "IJPrO;? ma Y easily have arisen out of VxCnTO by metathesis and slight corruption.

2 Duhm once more brings in Alexander Jannaeus.

3 We can only mention here that Tunio(? - 10) probably comes from D n urr), and ny^VK from C ^nyOE . 1EN3 is an editorial insertion ; 5] J9 goes with CJ^T (so point ; cp Lam. 4:16). ODina probably comes from CI^pl C"1K ; ~"UV33 from C nisrn ; pian from rrain.

4 On the emendations see Ps.(2). We can only mention here that <xT in v. 5b comes from SNIC"! that the following word -gg> should be a corruption of pnO , and that C 3 and "i?a "2"7j; are both corruptions of 7N3nT (dittographed), while rj Din is one of the many corruptions of nS~li !3 i v. 86 probably comes from a dittographed pia ! the preceding line should run jnap* 3x133 DSJV.

31. Thirdly, Pss. 61 and 63.[edit]

iii. Psalms 61 and 63. - Pss. 61 and 63 are obscure only as long as we hesitate to criticise the MT. Ps. 61 is compsite. Verse 1 [2] is a fragment of a psalm of exile, which is akin to pss. 42, 43; the rest pf the psalm illustrates Pss. 2, 21, 83, 110. It is enough to quote vv. 4-7 [5-8], -

For thou hast heard my wail,
Thou wilt grant Israel's request ;
He will shatter Jerahmeel and Zarephath,
He will beat them down like Moab and Midian.
He will abide before Yahwe for ever,
Lovingkindness and faithfulness will preserve him. 4

Ps. 63 also refers to the hated enemy ; but the intemperate language of v. 11 [12] is due to textual corruption. The leading idea is simply this - that pious Jews, at a distance from the sanctuary, and in peril of their lives, call upon Yahwe to restore to them their priceless spiritual privileges. At the close of the psalm the speaker expresses his confidence that Yahwe will annihilate Israel's dangerous foes, and that Israel will praise God for his goodness in the temple. Why should a king be referred to? Both Gratz and Toy (JBL 18:162) have noticed the problem; but the key was wanting. The clause in question comes after a description of the sufferings caused to the Jews by the N. Arabian populations, and the right reading almost certainly is ni.T fna; C ^KSnY, 'The Jerahmeelites Yahwe will shatter'. J

32. Fourthly, Pss. 89b and 132.[edit]

iv. Psalms, 89b and 132. - Pss. 89 (or rather, 89b {2} ) and 132 have been thought to refer to the Jewish people as Yahwe's anointed. This at least is plain - that the psalmist could not have written the words 'they insult the footsteps of thine anointed' (v. 51 [52]), meaning 'they insult thy people in its goings'. Nor is it easy to admit that after promising perpetuity to the family of David (132:11-12) and joy to the pious members of the community of Zion (v. 16b), a psalmist could proceed to say that on Mt. Zion Yahwe would cause a horn to spring forth to David, and that he had prepared a lamp for his anointed. Thus there is only a slight parallelism between the two psalms - viz., their common reference to the perpetuity promised to the house of David. Ps. 89 records the deep despondency of the community at the apparent failure of the promises ; 3 Ps. 132 is a dramatic representation of the culminating point in the traditional life of Solomon, with an under lying reference to the future Messianic king. In the latter psalm, 'mine anointed' ( % n % ra) needs no alteration ; in the former, criticism proves convincingly that irrtra nupj? is a corruption of spron nisSa ( 'the insults of thy loyal ones' ) || to r^y nsnn ( 'the contumelies of thy servants' ). 4

The most various opinions have been held as to the relation between 132:8-10 and 2 Ch. 6:41-42. The form in which the passage is given in the psalm is surely the more original (cp Ehrt, Abfassungszeit, etc., 66+); but that does not prove that Ps. 132 is of later date than Chronicles. An interpolation in 2 Ch. from the psalm seems very probable.

1 The parallel line has fallen out.

2 The composite character of Ps. 89 is plain from the difference both of metre and of subject in the two parts. Verses 1-18 [2-19] are mostly in tetrameters and describe the greatness of Yahwe and the happiness of his people ; vv. 19-51 [20-52] are in trimeters and describe the promises to David and Israel and their failure. According to Baethgen, 89:18 [89:19] refers to the ideal king - the Messiah, who is visible only to the eyes of faith. This is most unnatural. Unless we are willing to suppose a 7 of emphasis, we must read 13373 ?KTB" g-npl I 13 1 ? [33 m.T 2, 'for Yahwe is a shield unto us, the Holy One of Israel is our king'.

3 Sellin (Serubbabel, 194+; Studien, 2:191+) thinks of ZERUBBABEL [q.v.], the unsuccessful Messianic king (?). But the real or imaginary background of Ps. 89b is the Jerahmeelite oppression from 600 B.C. onwards.

4 Verses 51-52 [50-51] represent the same couplet in different forms (see Ps. (2)). Duhm thinks that g-3 py may mean 'the footsteps of thy fugitive king', alluding to the flight of Alexander Jannaeus (88 B.C. ?); cp Jos. Ant. 13:14:1-2. As if any psalmist could have spoken thus of such a miserable king ! Besides, in Ecclus. 47:2 there seems to be an allusion to Ps. 89:20 [89:19]: 0113 (cp niann); and in Ecclus. 45:15e to Ps. 89:30 [29] : D CB 1 3-D-

33. Fifthly, Pss. 45, 72, and 101.[edit]

v. Psalms 45, 72, 101. - Pss. 45, 72, and most probably 101, however, are royal psalms ; the king is the Messiah; every other view is encumbered with difficulties, and the one difficulty specifically attaching to the present theory which is enforced upon us by textual criticism, can be surmounted. The Messiah is described in all three psalms as a second Solomon. Of course it is the later legend of Solomon that is built upon.

We see this especially in the poetic picture in Ps. 45. Admiring mention is made of the king's singular wisdom and eloquence (cp 1 K. 4:29-33 [5:9-13], 10:6-7, 10:23-24), of his success in war (2 Ch. 8:3), and of his righteous rule (1 K. 3:16-28). Of all these divine gifts, the greatest is the king's inflexible justice (eulogised again in Pss. 72 and 101), of which his political influence, his extensive commerce, and his vast supply of gold (1 K. 10) are the reward. It is the crown of his felicity that he has a queen-consort, beautiful, and richly adorned, who is an Egyptian princess (see translation below, and cp 1 K. 3:1, 11:1-3). Lastly, the king addressed has a prospect of a family of sons, whom (with an allusion to 1 K. 4) he may place over the provinces of Palestine.

In Ps. 72 the Solomonic element is much less striking. The king is called the 'king's son', a phrase suggested by the coronation of Solomon during David s lifetime, and glowing expectations are formed of the justice of his rule. He is tender to the righteous poor but severe to the oppressor, and more especially severe to those Cushites, Jerahmeelites, and Edomites, who were the worst enemies of the Jews in the Babylonian and Persian periods. This contemporary reference is more prominent in Ps. 45 than in Pss. 72 and 101 ; but of its existence criticism hardly permits us to doubt.

Of these three psalms - the only strictly Messianic ones in the Psalter - brief specimens may be given. The reader will find that where the translation appears most novel, the text as it stands is singularly obscure. A near approximation to the truth is, of course, all that can be asked.

6 Upon those that hate thee, O thou hero ! thine arrows will descend ;
They will fall upon the men of Arabia and Jerahmeel. 2
7b A sceptre of justice is the sceptre of thy kingdom,
8 Righteousness thou lovest, iniquity thou hatest ;
Therefore peoples do homage unto thee,
[All kindreds of the nations serve thee].
17 Hearken, O Egyptian maiden, 3 lean thine ear ;
Forget thine own people, and thine own father s house :
12 For the king longs deeply for thy beauty ;
For he is thy lord [and Yahwe's Anointed] :
13 And unto thee will they bow down, O Egyptian maiden, with gifts,
The richest of [all] people will sue for thy favour.
5 He shall crush the folk of Cusham,
And destroy the race of Jerahmeel ; 4
6 He shall bring down Maacath and Amalek,
Those of Rehoboth and of Zarephath.
9 Before him those of Cush shall bend the knee,
The Arabians shall lick the dust ;
10 The Ishmaelites shall bring gifts,
Those of Sheba shall offer gold.
Lovingkindness and justice will I seek, | Yahwe's righteousness will I practise.
To the cause of the orphan I will give heed, | to the suit of the widow.
In Jerahmeel I will destroy | all the wicked ones of the land,
That I may cut off from the land of Yahwe | all workers of wrong. 1

1 As long as we adhere to the traditional text, it is difficult not to look out for a post-exilic king to whom Ps. 45 in particular may be applied, and Smend (Rel.-gesch.^ 376, n. 2) still (1899) applies Pss. 45 and 72 to some Greek king. In (1) (1893) he thought of Ptolemy Philadelphus for Ps. 72. The fullest treatment of the claims of this Ptolemy to be the hero of Pss. 45 and 72 will be found in OPs. (1891), pp. 144-146, 156, 168-172, 183. The Messianic hypothesis, however, is adopted in Jew. Rel. Life, 106-108. Pratt (JBL 19 [1900] 189+) finds a reference to the bridal relation between Yahwe and his people, and supposes a nucleus, consisting of a secular royal ode of smaller dimensions. Really, if we presuppose MT, we may form almost any theory. Budde, in his treatment of Ps. 101 (Exp.T. 8:202+) shows a freer spirit. He thinks that the psalm was originally an utterance of Yahwe, and that it has been transformed to make it suitable for the community. No doubt some passages of the psalm might be applied to Yahwe. No doubt, too, if a historical king wrote the psalm, we might accuse him of self- conscious ness. But the psalm is virtually a prophecy, and corresponds to Is 11:3-5.

2 17Dn TN 373 (v. 6) should probably be D 7NOnT1 D 3iy3- Duhm s 3?Q for 373 is far too superficial to meet his object.

3 For NTI m (v. 11) and IS D3 (v. 13) read Dnsp D3. The original tradition made Solomon s chief wife a Misrite ; but the tradition was presumably already corrupted in the time of the Psalmist.

4 psny N3T1 and tyoty DJ? TINT are both corruptions of Ctf 3 DJ7 N3T. WOC? also covers over TDB". 337, as elsewhere, should be j^ 1 ?. D -pl TH PIT comes from Q 7XDnT- For the other emendations see Ps.(2).

34. Result.[edit]

We have now practically closed our consideration of the royal psalms, for on Pss. 28 and 84 it is enough to refer back to the remark ( 29, i. a ; 30, ii) that 7irwo, 'his anointed', is several times in the Psalter miswritten for iTon, 'his loyal (or pious) one'. There are no royal psalms in the sense supposed by most critics ; there are three, and only three, psalms which are in the narrower sense Messianic, though in the broader sense a large proportion of the psalms deserve this distinctive epithet.

We can now return to the question raised in a former paragraph ( 24, end), How are we to account for the addresses in certain psalms to an as yet non-existent king? Any interpreter approaching Pss. 45, 72, 101 for the first time would suppose them to refer to a contemporary king. Yet there are strong reasons for rejecting this view. The psalmists are not ordinary poets. They are all heroes of faith, and some of them, at any rate, hold strongly to the belief in the Messiah, and regard the two kings who were specially idealised by the popular imagination - David and Solomon - as types of the expected ideal king. They trusted God's promise, and prophesied the coming of the king by portraying him in the likeness of Solomon, as if he were already on earth. 'For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given'.

1 For m B N, mCIN read inE ; N, rrpE X (v. i). Also fuoW 3ns | Din; n3ns ^S&K (v. 2), and JVOXN ?Norn;s (v. 8a), and ni,T flND (v. 8b). Verse 8a does not resume what has gone before, but adds a fresh detail. The worst offenders against morality are in the land of Jerahmeel or Edom. Here, too, the Messianic king, who is the speaker, will put an end to the wicked. Thus, as the result of all this purification, Yahwe's land will have none but righteous people (Is. 60:21a).

35. Psalms of Immortality?[edit]

We will next take a brief survey of four important psalms, which have been traditionally held to contain references to the immortality of the individual. These psalms are two (David) Jedithun psalms, viz 16 and 17 ; one Korah-psalm, viz. 49 ; and one Asaph-psalm, viz. 73.

i. Psalms 16 and 17. - Both 16 and 17 express strong love for the temple, and a sense of security derived from Yahwe s presence in the sanctuary. Both also repre sent the speaker as exposed to danger from the N. Arabian enemies, though the references are obscured in our present corrupt text.

Ps. 17 reminds us strongly of Ps. 22a, in which the Jerahmeelite or Edomite oppressors are variously designated (see Che. Ps.( 2 )) as 'lions' and 'wild oxen with pointed horns', 'traitors' ("3~13, misinterpreted in v. 19 [18] as TIS, 'my garments' ), and of Ps. 18 (a part of the description of the terrifying 'snares' and 'floods' given in this psalm recurs in 17:10, restored text). Ps. 16, in its triumphant contempt for outward dangers, reminds us of Pss. 3, 4 and 23.

The two psalms (16-17) are connected by their parallel ending ; and both are akin to the large group of psalms expressing love of the temple, and especially perhaps to Ps. 27a and to the miscalled royal psalm, 61 (cp 61:8a with 16:11, 17:15).

In Ps. 16 the speaker rejoices in the sure hope of deliverance. In spite of his troubles, he continues to praise Yahwe, and his one delight is to visit the sanctuary, where he renews that sense of the divine favour which keeps his inner being in perfect peace. He is confident that Yahwe will not suffer his 'loyal one' to perish. Does the psalmist mean himself? No ; it is Israel who says that in heart, mind, and body it is jubilant. The glorious Messianic time (Messianic, in the wider sense) is at hand. When it comes, life will be life indeed. The way to this life is known to Yahwe, who will show it to his people, and fill Israel with joys which are past imagining.

10 My soul thou wilt not yield to the nether world,
Thy loyal one thou wilt not suffer to see the pit ;
11 Thou wilt make known to me the path of life,
Thou wilt satisfy me with joys in thy presence. 1

The prayer for protection in Ps. 17 follows upon an earnest self -justification in vv. 2-5. The protection which the speaker craves is guaranteed by the presence of Yahwe in the sanctuary ; while stands the temple, pious Israel will stand. Yes ; here again there is nothing which according to a strictly critical exegesis points to an individual. It is Israel who, perceiving the imminent danger in which, humanly speaking, he stands, breaks out into a curse - a borrowed curse (see 11:7 ) - on the enemy. For himself, however, he expresses the sure confidence of Messianic felicity. Israel will behold Yahwe s face in unclouded brightness, and the temple will be richer in spiritual privileges than at present it can be.

15 As for me, by [thy] righteousness | I shall behold thy face ;
I shall be satisfied with thy loving-kindness | in thy habitation.

ii. Psalm 49. - Ps. 49 too, has nothing to do with the individual, according to a critical exegesis. It deals with a problem very familiar to Jewish sages - viz., the right attitude of the pious in view of the prosperity of the wicked.

The answer, Wellhausen supposes, is that 'death makes all equal, and strikes the man who has much to lose harder than him who has little'. The correctness of this may, however, be doubted, and even Wellhausen holds that v. 15 [16] supplements the negative consolation that death closes the happiness of the ungodly by the positive comfort that God may deliver the godly from sudden death ( 'Psalms', SBOT 185). Duhm, however, is of opinion that the psalmist holds a doctrine of the immortality of the pious, which must, he thinks, have been con nected with well-defined ideas as to the place to which a good man was 'taken' after death. (So also Ops. 382, 406+; cp ESCHATOLOGY, 31) Obviously this interpretation has a bearing on the question of the date of the psalm ; in fact, Duhm includes Ps. 49 (like Ps. 73) among his Pharisee psalms.

So much at least is undeniable, that for a certain class of persons, according to the psalmist, death has a penal character. But can we stop short here? Is it likely that the psalmist, who wrote not for a remote age but for his own generation, only referred vaguely to the persons punished by death as the rich and the wicked? Certainly not. We have to seek for underlying refer ences to historical people, and if we seek these aright, we shall find them ; for Jewish editors were not arbitrary forgers - they did but put the best interpretation they could on inaccurately transmitted passages, and they have left us the means of correcting their errors. The only passage in Ps. 49 which we can safely assign to the editor is vv. 3 and 4 [4 and 5]. The remainder is really an attack on the Jerahmeelites or Edomites, who would seem to have settled amongst the Jews, to have amassed great wealth, not always by legitimate means, and to have denied the moral government of God (10:4, 10:11, 10:13, 14:1, etc.). The first stanza should probably run thus,

1 Hear this, all ye Edomites,
Attend, all ye Jerahmeelites,
2 Both traitors and deniers,
The wicked and the impious together.

And the three most disputed verses (13-15 [14-16]) should probably run thus, -

13 This is the fate of those that deny God,
The latter end of those that insult Israel.
14 For ever they will be prostrate in the pit,
They will seek earnestly in the darkness for daybreak.
The pangs of death will affright them,
The terrors of Sheol will take hold of them.
15 (But) surely my soul God will ransom,
From the hand of Sheol he will take me. 1

Stern and uncompromising is the refrain,-

12:20 Traitors will not come up from Sheol.
The impious are destroyed in Deathland.

Thus the background of Ps. 49 is the same as that of so very many other psalms - the Jerahmeelite oppression ; and the comfort proffered to Jewish sufferers is that there will soon be an end of the oppressors in Sheol.

1 That the speaker looks for an endless life is certain (cp 21:5 [21:4], 61:8 [61:7]). But n! J (EV, 'for evermore' ) has passed out of the revised text. All the stanzas of Ps. 16 have four lines except (at first sight) the fifth. The four preceding lines all have a verb ; the fifth has none. This is the more remarkable as the adverb ns:M follows. The truth is that, for -p-a 3 may: n^j we should read pn133K D3 IDn- This is also the true close of Ps. 17. By accident, it was copied into Ps. 16 from the column in which Ps 17 was written. See Ps. (2).

iii. Psalm 73. - Ps. 73 has the same historical back ground as Ps. 49. The Edomites are settled in the land, and their prosperity, which violates the orthodox doctrine of retribution, tempts the Jews to apostasy. It is not very likely a priori that such a psalm would express, even as it were by a lightning-flash, the intuition of immortality.

As the traditional text stands, it is natural to suppose this, mainly on account of vv. 15-17, where the speaker apparently distinguishes himself from the generation of Yahwe's 'sons' - i.e., the pious community - and also refers to a visit which he paid, during his mental struggle, to the sanctuary of God. If the speaker in the psalm is an individual - as this passage appears to imply, must we not suppose that in vv. 25-26 he expresses the assurance of the perpetual duration of his blissful communion with God ? Verses 15-17, however, are not altogether correctly read, and the order of the lines has been disturbed. The psalm consists of fourteen quatrains ; nos. 8, 9 and 10 should be composed of vv. 16 and 21 ; vv. 15 and 22 ; and vv. 17 and 18. When we examine the text closely, we find that the gth and loth quatrains need emendation. The whole passage should probably run thus, -

16 And when I sought to comprehend this,
Too painful seemed it unto me ;
21 For my heart was astonished,
And in my reins I was horror-stricken.
15 I myself rejected wisdom,
Thy loving-kindness and faithfulness I denied ;
22 I became a dullard, I was ignorant,
I lacked discernment concerning thee ;
17 Until I gave heed to the judgments of God,
And discerned the future of those men :
18 How (suddenly) calamities overtake them !
Thou easiest upon them gloom (of Deathland).

A section of the Jewish community (including, it would seem, many of the leading members) had, inwardly at any rate, 'denied God', even if some of them did not actually join the assembly of the impious mentioned in Ps. 50 (v. 18, emended text). Looking back upon this, they saw how foolish they had been, and recognised that they had missed the only possible explanation of the facts, viz. that when God's time (the Messianic judgment) has come, the wicked will be suddenly swept away like grass (cp 92:7 [92:8]). Pious Israel recovered its balance, and the joyous conscious ness of the divine Companion returned to it. No in ward temptation nor outward misfortune can cause him to stumble. He longs for Yahwe - the peerless God - to reveal himself by some mighty deed as Israel's eternal portion. 3 No more will he give way to doubt ; the denial of Yahwe leads to ruin.

1 The emendations which, the present writer holds, are forced upon us are too many to be all given here (see Ps.W). A few, however, may be mentioned. In l. 1 read ni.T BTI3D TVTni I in 1. 2, i ?N1B flinD mntCl - The refrain is

ni.T BTI3D TVTni I
i ?N1B flinD mntCl

2 In ll. 5, 6 read

i7O]n 'AOXO '?£
'A7r] =iAOX! =i=On

In ll. 8 read, with Gratz, -ley WOn ni:?3n. In l. 9, TaB-trip ht( BEtra^x ; in l. 10, rua 1 ?* nSsrt D.T^V.

3 Verse 26 has received some accretions. It should probably run thus,

My flesh and my heart pine for him ;
Yahwe is my Rock and my Portion for ever.
36. Result.[edit]

Our conclusion is that there are no immortality psalms for the individual, only for the community, and that Ps. 73 is not only a psalm of faith in immortality, but also a psalm of doubt of God's fundamental attributes - a doubt from which the community emerged with a full spiritual assurance based on the more deeply realised doctrine of the imminent Messianic judgment. As a psalm of doubt, Ps. 73 has its parallels in Pss. 39a, 94a, and 116 ; but we must not here enter on the consideration of these much misunderstood poems. We may, however, state the conclusion, forced upon us by our new textual criticism, that the view of Rudinger, Olshausen, Hitzig, Frankel (Einfluss der Palastin. Exegese auf die Alexandrin. Hermeneutik, 1851, p. 233), that at any rate Ps. 73 indicates contact with Hellenism, is incorrect. The problem before the psalmist in this and in the parallel psalms is the prosperity of the wicked rich who had flocked into Palestine from the neighbouring regions, and who ground down the poor and faithful Jews.

37. Ideas of Psalter varied.[edit]

From what has been said, it will be plain that a historical sketch of the different phases of thought in the Psalter would be extremely difficult to make. The religious ideas of the Psalter {1} are no less varied than those of the community, nor could we be so rash as to attempt to describe them at the close of a critical article. From what has been said already (see 2) it must be plain that we have in the Psalter no merely local pro duct. The Psalter is, at least in theory, catholic and oecumenical ; meant for synagogues as well as for the temple ; for the whole empire of Yahwe as well as for the central Judaean province. That its ideas should be all equally noble, was not to be expected. It is probable, however, that the nett gains from a more thorough criticism of the text of the psalms would be much in excess of the losses, and that the average religious standard of the psalmists would prove to be as much above that which it is commonly supposed to be as the character of their Hebrew style. The imprecatory psalms, in particular, would be seen to be less shocking throughout than they appear to be in the traditional text (see Che. The Christian Use of the Psalms, 1899). This, if correct, is of no slight importance, for it is a heavy drawback to the religion of the psalmists that fervent love of God should be accompanied with such intemperate expressions of hostility to the 'wicked'. While these psalms stand in their present form, it is difficult indeed to respect the Psalter as much as we should like, and we can hardly wonder that such a candid writer as Duhm should express such strong repugnance to much that it contains. Only upon the basis of a thoroughly revised text can we, properly speaking, maintain that the Psalter is a record of the religious consciousness of the Jewish Church. 2

The definition here given of the Psalter is in harmony with the result of the controversy as to the 'I'-psalms (see 6). It is still more obviously in accordance with the fact that most of the psalms in books 4 and 5 are congregational utterances. One might illustrate the combination of 'I'- and 'We'-psalms by parallels from the Greek choruses. But the phenomena of books 4 and 5 are perhaps best explained thus. The instinctive personification of the church-people in the 'I'-psalms was a survival - an inheritance from antiquity. It was natural that later religious poets should begin to look upon their nation in a more modern light as an organisation of individualities. They did not indeed go so far as those modern hymnists who have half-filled the popular hymnals with lyrics of a strongly personal tone. Karely do the Hebrew psalmists disclose their personality. They had indeed their private joys and sorrows ; but they did not make these the theme of song. The individual consciousness was not sufficiently developed for this. . . . But the later 'We'-psalms, though not less national than the others, indicate a perception that, as Kingsley has said, 'communities are for the divine sake of individual life, for the sake of the love and truth that is in each heart, and is not cumulative - cannot be in two as one result'. (OPs. 265-266).

It must, however, be remembered that not only do books 4 and 5 contain 'I'-psalms, but a later un-canonical Psalter (that of Solomon ; 41-42) has a number of psalms of the personified community. Individualism needed for its development a new and unique impulse ; not yet could the floods of personal feeling and emotion break through the dams, and transform the whole aspect of poetry.

1 For the religious ideas of the Psalter, according to the newer criticism, see OPs. (1891), pp. 258-452; Smend, Rel.-gesch. (1), 1893; (2), 1899.

2 The word 'church' is used in the wider sense, as by Dean Stanley in the phrase 'the Jewish church'. 'Community' is less familiar to us than the corresponding word Gemeinde is to Germans ; it is also somewhat too narrow a word for use in all connections.

38. Chronology of Psalms.[edit]

With regard to the chronology of the Psalms, it is not much that we can say, taking our stand on a carefully revised text. It is, however, reasonable to hold that the groups or collections of psalms - Pss. 90-106, Pss. 107-129, Pss. 135-145, and Pss. 146-150 in which the psalms only occasionally bear titles, contain many works of the Greek period. Among the possible or probable representatives of an earlier age are Ps. 90 at any rate, for the first part of this psalm (90a) can hardly be separated from Ps. 89, both being, from the same causes, in the same despondent tone and both (as criticism shows) Ezrahite psalms ; also Ps. 94, which interrupts the 'new song' of praise, and goes with the kindred 73rd psalm ; also 137, as one of the chief of the anti-Edomite psalms, and the group called m^i cn TB , or rather no^S 'of Salmah', but best known to English readers as 'Songs of degrees', which may have been originally enclosed by Hallelujah groups (i.e., before 119 was inserted). Pss. 113-118, called the 'Egyptian Hallel', a group which seems filled by the hope of a new and great event comparable to the Exodus (cp Is. 10:24, 10:26) - such a hope as the conquests of Alexander may well have fanned into a flame - and Ps. 146-150, cleverly called by Nachman Krochmal 'the Greek Hallel', must surely be allotted to the Greek age. Not, however, to the Maccabaean age. As we have seen, even 149:6 has its parallels in psalms which we have no reason for bringing down to the time of the Maccabees. We must be careful not to exclude, on grounds of principle, from the psalms of the Greek age all those which have a real or assumed Jerahmeelite or Edomite background. It was of course not till the time of John Hyrcanus that the so-called Idumrea became a Jewish province, and we could well understand that even at a later time 'Edomite' might still be a synonym for 'oppressor'. Beyond this, it is not safe to go. The text binds us - not indeed the Massoretic or the Septuagint text, but that which underlies the tradition, and which can to a considerable extent be recovered by methodical investigation. We cannot, therefore, say with Duhm that Pss. 74, 79, 83 and 110, being clearly (he thinks) Maccabaean, supply fixed points for the chronology of the Psalter, and the other psalms which this critic regards as revealing their date hardly less distinctly than these - e.g., the so-called royal psalms, which he places in the first rank of evidence for the time of Alexander Jannaeus are, for us, equally devoid of clear references to contemporary history.

Nor can we attach any importance to the widely held theory that Pss. 96, 105:1-15 , and 106:1, 106:47, 106:48, and also 132:8-10, must have been known to the Chronicler 1 - a theory which, as generally expressed (see e.g. , Strack, Einl.W 119), involves holding that the so-called fourth Book of the Psalms was already in existence in the Chronicler's time. This last thesis is not in itself probable. The division between books 4 and 5 is not natural, and was probably not made till the final redaction of the Psalter, which cannot plausibly be said to have occurred till after the Chronicler s time. It is also less probable that the dividing doxology in Ps. 106:48 originally contained the words ;CN cyrr^ nrxi, I T "Y T T "T : 'and let all the people say, Amen', than that these words were taken, with one slight and necessary alteration, from 1 Ch. 16:36, where we read, at the close of the strange composite psalm, JON Djn^s nax i, 'and all the people said, Amen'. This at least is Wellhausen's view (Bleek's Einl.W 506, n. 1), which, however, seems to need supplementing. It is probable (1) that the whole of the close of Ps. 106 - viz. , vv. 47-48 - is borrowed from 1 Ch. 16:35-36. {1} (beginning ujrenn npxi and ending, ^rn mrr 1 ? [rather a'7n^n]), and (2) that both the close (vv. 1-5) and the opening of Ps. 106 are accretions on the main body of Ps. 106, which had been handed down in an incomplete form, and needed some such additions to make it usable. As a consequence, we cannot commit ourselves to the view that 1 Ch. 16;34 is borrowed from 106:1 (which may well be later than the Chronicler). The formula was a conventional one, and occurs in 107:1, 118:1, 136:1. Nor can we venture to assert positively that it was the Chronicler who copied 96, 105:1-15 (see 1 Ch. 16:8-33) and 132:8-10 (see 2 Ch. 6:41-42). The books of Chronicles, like other books, passed under the hands of redactors, and it is very possible that the insertions from the Psalter referred to were made by one of these. 2 We cannot, therefore, safely use the argument which is often based on these insertions to determine the date of at least a few psalms.

That there are no pre-exilic psalms, nor ascertainable fragments of such psalms, is for us at least quite certain. And though there is the abstract possibility that psalms were written in the lands of exile before the arrival of Ezra and his band at Jerusalem, the uniformity of the historical background of the psalms of book i. does not favour the hypothesis. In spite of Duhm, whose chronology of the psalms is opposed (1) to a thorough textual criticism, and (2) to the literary phenomena of the fragments of the Hebrew Sirach, we must hold that at any rate books 1-3 belong most probably (with the exceptions of the anonymous psalms 1-2 and 33, unless LXX rightly prefixes to 33 r^s Aaveid [too Daveid]) to the Persian period, or to the Persian and the very beginning of the Greek period.

1 Cp Ehrt's comparison of the texts, Abfassungszeit, 43+

39. Phraseological argument.[edit]

It would no doubt be helpful to make out the extent of the indebtedness of the Psalter to Is. 40-66, to Jeremiah, and to Job. Owing, however, (1) to the doubt which in an especial degree hangs round the text of the Psalter and of Job and (2) to the composite origin of all the three books mentioned, we cannot here lay much stress upon this. In a complete Introduction to the Book of Psalms a phraseological comparison of the Psalter with these books would have to be instituted ; but a critical revision of the text of all four books would of course be presupposed. That there is a small element of truth in Hitzig's theory of Jeremianic psalms can hardly be doubted, 3 and even in book 1 of the Psalms it is impossible not to recognise some clear points of contact with the Colloquies of Job. It is also beyond question that Pss. 93 and 96-100 are even strikingly parallel to Is. 40-66, {4} and the amount of real parallelism between psalms even in books 1-2 and the Colloquies of Job is not inconsiderable (cp Earth, Beltrage zur Erklarung des B. Hiob, 1876). It would also be important in the Introduction here suggested to sift the comparisons of passages in the Psalter and in the Hebrew text (so far as known) of Ben Sira given by Schechter ( Wisdom of Ben Sira, 13-25). There seem to be several reminiscences of Ps. 147 in Ben Sira, which is a point of some critical interest. So much, as Noldeke remarks, is clear - that Ben Sira lived at the time and in the circles in which a great part of the later psalms were written.

1 This passage consists of a current liturgical prayer, and a liturgical benediction and doxology (similar to those placed by editors at the end of books 1, 2, and 3).

2 Similarly Reuss, Stade, and Duhm (cp 4, n. 3).

3 Campe (Das Verhaltniss, etc., 19, 24, 27, 31, 33, 35) decides that Jer. 17:8, 10:24, 20:10, 23:12, 10:25, 10:13 are the originals of Ps. 1, 3, 62 [61], 31:14 [31:13], 35b, 79:6-7, 135:7. Konig (Einl. 397) pronounces this insecure ; but he has perhaps not a good eye for phraseological points of contact. Campe certainly errs on the side of moderation. Ps. 79:6-7, however, is an interpolation. [Cp LXX's insertion of Jer. 9:23-24 (9:22-23) in 1 K. 2:10.]

4 Similarly Driver, Intr.(^) 383 ; cp Ehrt, Abfassungszeit (1869), 53-55 ; Gratz, MGWJ 30 (1881) i ff. ; and Delitzsch's commentary.

40. Linguistic argument.[edit]

The linguistic argument, to which we have referred already (9), has been treated with moderation by Konig. He computes the number of occurrences of >JJ N and MN respectively, of the relative & (only towards the end of the Psalter), and of n]7 'much', 'often' (also chiefly at end of Psalter), and the designation of 'myriad' by naa-i (3:7 [3:6] [?], 91:7) and i]7 (68:18 [68:17 ] [?]). J. P. Peters' attempt to account for linguistic peculiarities in the wVjfflM T&? by the influence of Babylonian environment, assumes, rather too confidently, the accuracy of MT. It is in fact the state of the text of the Psalter that makes it peculiarly difficult to form conclusions which can command general assent. The present writer's inference from a revised text of the Psalms is much in their favour. If the text of the Hebrew fragments of Ben Sipa can be trusted, he would be unwilling to bring many of the psalms very near the generally accepted date of Ben Sira s Wisdom. Unfortunately, the correctness of many parts of the Hebrew text of Ben Sira, in its present form, is liable to the greatest doubt, and the present writer would probably go even beyond Noldeke (ZATW 20 [1900] 8:4+) in the extent to which he traces unbiblical words, idioms, and constructions to deep-seated corruption of the text.

41. Psalter of Solomon.[edit]

A singular argument is used by Duhm to confirm the late date which he assigns to a group within the group of wnat he calls Pharisee Psalms (viz., 9-10, 14, 56-57a, 58-59, 64, 82, 92, 94, 140, probably also 5, 26, 54, 141). These psalms, he says (Psalmen, Einl. 22), which are probably directed against Alexander Jannaeus and his adherents, have a striking resemblance to most of the 'Psalms of Solomon'. Elsewhere he expresses surprise that the critics have not recognised how near chronologically the Davidic Psalter is to the Solomonic. Frankenberg too 1 has arrived at a somewhat similar result ; only he assigns the Psalms of Solomon, together with a (large?) group of canonical psalms, to the period of the Syrian persecution. The existence of points of contact may be granted ; but, as is shown elsewhere (see ESCHATOLOGY, 64, 66), the eschatology of the Psalter of Solomon differs from that of the canonical psalms. 2 To this we must add that, in our judgment, Kosters is right 3 (against Frankenberg) in denying that there is any distinct reference in the Psalter of Solomon to contemporary history. The psalms appealed to by Frankenberg as proving a Maccabaean date and by Wellhausen 4 (cp MESSIAH, 6) as proving a reference to the capture of Jerusalem by Pompey in 63 B. C. , really refer, according to Kosters, to the catastrophe of 586 B.C.

1 Die Datirung der Psalmen Salomos (1896).

2 So too Kirkpatrick, Psalms, Introd. 37-38.

3 De historische achtergrond van de Psalmen van Salomo (Verslagen der Koninglijke Akad. van Wetenschappen, 4:2), 1898.

4 Die Pharisaer und die Sadducaer (Heilage), 1874.

5 In Ps. Sol. 2:26 [2:30], where the death of the 'dragon' is related, 7rl riav bpeuiv Acyvn-rov [pi ton oreoon Aigypton] may represent D ^D nrr7J7 'on the mountains of Misrim', and en-l yjs KOL 6<xXaercn)9 [epi ges kai Thalasses] 7RQn~T jHN 7^ 'on the land of Jerahmeel'. So too in v. 29 [33] eyu> KU/DIOS yrj? (tai. 0aAa<T<r>)s [egoo kyrios ges kai Thalasses] may be based on a faulty text, which should have run, ^NSHT pN |HN JN, and in 17:15 [17:17] ei/ /xeVw fOvtav (rv/u- JOU KTWC [en mesoo ethnon sym?iktoon] may be a misinterpretation of 3TJ7 EJJ ^ira 'amidst the peoples of Arabia'.

42. Their background and name.[edit]

On this subject the present writer strongly holds with Kosters. He thinks that the references to the capture of Jerusalem may be used in illustration of Pss 74 and 79 and even thinks it possible that the writer (?) of these psalms continues the tradition of the Jerahmeelite captivity. 5 For want of the Hebrew text we cannot finally prove the latter point ; but our experience with the canonical psalms justifies us in regarding it as at least not improbable. Highly imitative the Psalms of Solomon certainly are, and among the signs of this imitativeness we may probably reckon the heading of each of the psalms i//a\uos rip <raAw J iut>i [psalmos too saloomon] - i.e. , IIDTD na^K 1 ? - which, consistently with our explanation of TOD and of no 1 ?^ 1 ? niSyon TV (Ps. 127), we may explain 'Marked : of [the sons of] Salmah' (see 21). In other words, though the old clan-names of the temple-singers had gone out of use, the collector of these Pharisee Psalms (as Ryle and James fitly call them) adopted one of these names as a prefix to the collection and to the psalms within it. Cornill s remark (Einl. 295), 'How they came to the designation " Psalms of Solomon" is quite inexplicable', is, we may venture to hope, too despondent.

43. Imitative psalms.[edit]

Thus the Psalms of David, the Lamentations, and possibly the Psalms of Solomon agree in their assumed historical background, though the want of originality in the text of the third of these collections forbids us to speak as enthusiastically of it as of the two former books. It is true, the Lamentations as well as many of the canonical psalms are imitative ; so too the psalms assigned by redactors to Hannah and Jonah respectively (1 S. 2:1-10, Jon. 2:2-9) are imitative, nor is there much originality in the psalms assigned to Hezekiah (Is. 38:10-20) and Habakkuk (Hab. 3 ; see HABAKKUK, 9). But amidst these imitative compositions there are at least some, which, if not absolutely original, nevertheless shine out by a true lyric beauty.

44. Psalm-composition.[edit]

No doubt many psalms not only of pre-exilic but also of post-exilic date have been lost. We could wish that gleanings had reached us, as in the case of the proverbs. At any rate, we have late specimens of psalm-composition in the Wisdom of Ben Sira (Ecclus. 36:1-17, 50:22-24, 51:1-12, 51:12 (1), 51:13-29; see Hebrew text), in the Greek Daniel, in Judith and Tobit, in the Assumption of Moses (10:1-10; see Charles), and even in the NT (see HYMNS). Indeed, since prophetic inspiration still appears to have existed in NT times, we can hardly wonder that psalms as well as prophecies are mentioned as characteristic of early Christianity (cp 1 Cor. 14:26). Long indeed is the history of the development of the psalm from the rude cries of the primitive Arabian worshipper on a visit to the sanctuary (see Wellh. Heid. (1) 107, (2) 110; WRS, RS (2) 340, n. 2) to the carefully elaborated songs of the temple and perhaps too of the synagogue service.

45. Historical reff. in psalm-titles.[edit]

In conclusion we give , conjecturally but not without good grounds, restorations of the historical references in the original titles of some of the canonical psalms. It will be remembered that again and again, in articles dealing with OT narratives and prophecies it has been maintained that these have been altered from earlier narratives and prophecies, partly misread, partly misinterpreted, so that they present historical and geographical statements widely differing from those originally conveyed. These transformed passages are analogous to the transformed psalm-titles. If by taking this course we help to rehabilitate the authors or supplementers of the titles, this can hardly be reckoned to our discredit. Such hard words have been used by critics (cp 11) respecting the unintelligence and incapacity for clear thinking of the unfortunate editors of the psalms that a plausible critical defence of them may appeal to those who can put aside prejudice, and look at facts with a single eye. We omit the portions of the titles relative to the collections to which the psalms severally belong (on which see 25-26), and refer for details to Ps. (2)

  • Ps. 3. At the approach of the sons of Arabia and the sons of Ishmael.
  • Ps. 7. With reference to the Arabians, the Cushites, the Jerahmeelites.
  • Ps. 18. The words of Israel in the day that Yahwe delivers him from the hand of all the Arabians and from Ishmael.
  • Ps. 30. A Sabbath (?) supplication. 1
  • Ps. 34. When the hosts of those of Jerahmeel and of Geshur fled.2
  • Ps. 51. For the Sabbath (?).
  • Ps. 52. Against the house of Jerahmeel.
  • Ps. 54. [Concerning] the Zarephathites.
  • Ps. 56. At beholding (?) the Zarephathites.
  • Ps. 57. When the sons of Ishmael and the Arabians drew near.
  • Ps. 59. Concerning the Ishmaelites and the house of Jerahmeel.
  • Ps. 60. At the oppression (of Israel) by Aram-jerahmeel and Aram-missur.
  • Ps. 63. At the goings-up to the house of Yahwe.
  • Ps. 142. When . . . among the Arabians. 3
  • Ps. 143. When the sons of Jerahmeel pursued. (Based on LXX)
  • Ps. 144. Concerning the captivity. (Based on LXX)

If the truth has not always been reached, the theory that Jerahmeelite oppression is the real or assumed background of very many of the psalms has been confirmed. Neither the authors nor the editors of the psalms and the psalm-titles deserved the disparaging epithets often of late years applied to them.

46. Psalm-titles in versions.[edit]

The study of the psalm-titles in the versions stands aside from our present subject. It need only be said that if the explanations of 7*>5 and T7OW given in 26 are correct the ascription of certain psalms in LXX to Jeremiah, or to Haggai and Zechariah, would seem to be discredited, as belonging to a time when -m 1 ? and nbWS (explained as giving authors names) were already found in the titles.

See Staerk, 'Zur Kritik der Psalmenuberschriften', ZATW 12 [1892] 91-161; B. Jacob. ZATIV 1(5 [1896] 155-166; Baethgen, Untersuch. uber die Psahncn nacli tier Peschita, Kiel, 1878 (unfinished);// 3 / , 1882, pp. 405^ 493^:; Der Psalmencommentar des Theodor von Mopsuestia in syrischer Bearbeitung, ZAT\V "> [1885] 53-101; Siebenzehn makka- baische Psalmen nach Theod. von Mops. , ib. 6 [1886] 261-288 7 [1837] 1-60. Baethgen's communications from the Syriac recast of Theodore's exegesis are very interesting. It is to Theodore that Theodoret alludes in the words, rds fmypa<f>a.^T<av \fia\n<av rives a7recaAe<rei [tas epigraphas ton psalmoon tines apekalesen] (Praef. ad Psalmos). He does not, however, reject the Davidic origin of the psalms, but only the reference of certain psalms to events in the life of David. David often spoke, Theodore believes, prophetically, and assumed the character of men yet unborn. This will not satisfy the Bishop of Cyrus : ToA/nT)pbi> oi^ai Kal \iav Opa<rv \fjfv8els rau ras 7rpo?ayop<:v eii> [tolmeron oimai kai lian thrasu pseudis tautas prosagoreuein]. The influence of Theodore, through the book called Exegesis, on early English theology has been well shown by Prof. J. D. Bruce of Bryn Mawr College, Pennsylvania (see 'Literature' ).

1 JV3H n33n (what does this mean?) should probably be nairn runn.

2 It has actually been thought that the historical assignment of this psalm in the present title was suggested by the occurrence of OyU in v. 9 [8], and that the scribe or editor substituted 'Abimelech' for 'Acbish' by a slip. Delitzsch and Kirkpatrick, however, find it hard to suppose such a slip of memory. In reality -^a 3N comes from MA-

3 It has been strangely supposed (Hupfeld, Duhm) that the title in MT and LXX was suggested by "13DD, 'confinement', in v. 8 [7].

4 Presbyterian Review, Oct. 1888, p. 661.

47. Poetical form.[edit]

Poetical form, obviously, cannot be treated in a small compass. The subject is of great importance. As Briggs well says, 4 the study of the measurement of the line, and the strophical arrangement of the psalms, combined with the study of their grouping, throws fresh light upon the Psalter. The most necessary preliminary information is given under POETICAL LITERATURE, 8, 9, where, too, the appended bibliography gives adequate references to the current literature. A metrical arrangement of the psalms ought to go on pari passu with textual revision. Unfortunately a thorough textual criticism is still a desideratum, though a thankworthy beginning has been made by Gratz, Lagarde, Duhm, and others. Whether SELAH [q.v.] has any relation to the divisions of psalms, is still a moot point. Refrains are clearly marked in Pss. 42-43, 46, 49 ; less certainly in Ps. 107 (v. 6 destroys the connection). Various forms of alphabetic structure appear in seven psalms (9-10, 25, 34, 37, 111, 119, 145).

Originally no doubt Ps. 9-10 was a perfect alphabetic poem. A later editor, however, broke it into two parts which became independent psalms through the insertion of what now forms 9:20-21 [9:19-20]. The only fairly connected portion of the original psalm which we can with probability indicate, is vv. 1-12 [2-13]. In Ps. 25, 34, 145 (cp Prov. 31, Lam. 4), each letter begins a couplet ; but in psalms 25 and 34 the 3 [hebrew N?] couplet is wanting, and there is a supernumerary tj [hebrew P?] couplet. In Ps. 37, each letter begins a stanza of four lines, and in Ps. 119 each line a stanza of eight lines. For parallel compositions, see ECCLESIASTICUS ( 16) ; LAMENTATIONS (1) ; NAHUM (6). We have no means of ascertaining whether this artificial form of poetry was used in pre-exilic times. The supposed acrostic in Ps. 110 is precarious (see 14a). Cp Konig, EM. 399, n. i ; Driver, IntrodW 367-368

T. K. C.

48. Ancient versions.[edit]

i. The oldest version, the LXX, follows a text generally closely corresponding to the Massoretic Hebrew, the main variations being in the titles and in the addition (lacking in some MSS) of an apocryphal psalm ascribed to David when he fought with Goliath. Pss. 9 and 10 are rightly taken as one psalm, but conversely Ps. 147 is divided into two.

The LXX text has many daughters, of which may be noticed

  • (a) the Memphitic (ed. Lagarde, 1875), see also iv. below ;
  • (b) the old Latin, which as revised by Jerome in 383 after the current Greek text forms the Psalterium Romanum, long read in the Roman Church and still used in St. Peter's ;
  • (c) various Arabic versions, including that printed in the polyglots of Le Jay and Walton, and two others of the four exhibited together in Lagarde's Psalterium, Iob, Proverbia, Arabice, 1876 ; on the relations and history of these versions, see G. Hoffmann, in Jenaer Literature., 1876, art. 539; the fourth of Lagarde's versions is from the Peshitta.

The Hexaplar text of the LXX, as reduced by Origen into greater conformity with the Hebrew by the aid of subsequent Greek versions, 2 was further the mother of

  • (d) the Psalterium Gallicanum, - that is, Jerome's second revision of the Psalter (385) by the aid of the Hexaplar

text ; this edition became current in Gaul and ultimately was taken into the Vulgate of

  • (e) the Syro-Hexaplar version (published by Bugati, 1820, and in facsimile from the famous Ambrosian MS by Ceriani, Milan, 1874).

ii. The Christian Aramaic version or Peshitta is largely influenced by LX; compare Baethgen, Untersuchungen (see 25). This version has peculiar psalm-titles taken from Eusebius and Theodore of Mopsuestia (see Nestle, in TLZ, 1876, p. 283).

iii. The Jewish Aramaic version or Targum is probably a late work. The most convenient edition is in Lagarde, Hagiographa Chaldaice, 1873.

iv. The best of all the old versions is that made by Jerome after the Hebrew in 405. It did not, however, obtain ecclesiastical currency - the old versions holding their ground, just as Anglicans still read the psalms in the version of the 'Great Bible' printed in the Prayer Book. Jerome's (important) version was first published in a good text by Lagarde, Psalterium iuxta Hebrceos Hieronymi, Leipsic, 1874.

[Baethgen's articles, Der textkrit. Wert der alten Ueberss. z. d. Ps. in JPT, 1882, should by all means be consulted. On E. W. Budge, The Earliest Known Coptic Psalter (1898), see Brightman, Journ. of Theol. Studies, 227S/ See, further, Bibliography, ii. ( 49), and TEXT AND VERSIONS.]

1 See, further, TEXT AND VERSIONS.

2 See Field, Origenis Hexapla, where the fragments of these versions are collected. That of Symmachus is esteemed the best.

49. Bibliography.[edit]

i. Exegetical Works. While some works of patristic writers are still of value for text criticism and for the history of early exegetical tradition, the treatment of the Psalms by ancient and mediaeval Christian writers is as a whole such as to throw light on the ideas of the commentators and their times rather than on the sense of a text which most of them knew only through translations. For the Psalms, as for the other books of the OT, the scholars of the period of the revival of Hebrew studies about the time of the Reformation were mainly dependent on the ancient versions and on the Jewish scholars of the Middle Ages. In the latter class Kimhi stands pre-eminent ; to the editions of his commentary on the Psalms must now be added the admirable edition of Dr. Schiller-Szinessy (Cambridge, 1883), containing unfortunately only the first book of his longer commentary. Among the works of older Christian scholars since the revival of letters, the commentary of Calvin (1557) - full of religious insight and sound thought - and the laborious work of M. Geier (1668, 1681 et sirpius) may still be consulted with advantage; but for most purposes Rosenmiiller's Scholia in Pss. ( (2), 1821-22) supersedes the necessity of frequent reference to the predecessors of that industrious compiler.

Of more recent works the freshest and most indispensable are Ewald s in the first two half-volumes of his Dichtcr des atien Bundes (f 2 ), Gottingen, 1866 ; ET 1880), and Olshausen's (1853). To these may be added (excluding general commentaries on the OT) the two acute but wayward commentaries of Hitzig (1836, 1863-65), that of Delitzsch (1859-60, then in shorter form in several editions since 1867 [I 4 )]; ET, by Eaton, from 4th Germ, ed., 1887-89) and that of Hupfeld O 2 ), by Riehm, 1867, 2 vols. ; ( 3 ), by Nowack, 1888). The last-named work, though lacking in original power and clearness of judgment, is extremely convenient and useful, and has had an influence perhaps dis proportionate to its real exegetical merits.

ii. The question of the text was first properly raised by Olshausen, and has since received special attention from v. Ortenberg (Zur Textkritik der Psalmen, 1861), Lagarde (Proph. Chald., 1872, and Psalterium Hieronymi, 164/1); Bruston (Du Texte printitif des Psaumes, 1873); Dyserinck, in the scholia to his Dutch translation of the Psalms, Theol. Tijdschr., 1878, pp. 2-jgff.; [H. Gratz, 1882-83], and Bickell (Carmina VT metrice, etc., Innsbruck, 1882), whose critical services are not to be judged merely by the measure of assent which his metrical theories may command [cp POETICAL LITERATURE, end]. In English we have among others, the useful work of Perowne (Pi, 1890), that of Lowe and Jennings (<-), 1884-5), and the valuable translation of Cheyne (1884, and with cortim., 1888).

The mass of literature on the Psalms is so enormous that no full list even of recent commentaries can be here attempted, much less an enumeration of treatises on individual psalms and special critical questions. For the latter Kuenen s Onderzoek, vol. 3, is, up to its date (1865), the most complete, and the new edition now in preparation will doubtless prove the standard work of reference. [The new edition was interrupted by the author s lamented death ; Part 3(1), edited by Matthes, closes with Proverbs, but does not include Psalms.] As regards the dates and historical interpretation of the psalms, all older dis cussions, even those of Ewald, are in great measure antiquated by recent progress in Pentateuch criticism and the history of the canon, and an entirely fresh treatment of the Psalter by a sober critical commentator is urgently needed. W. R. S.

iii. Translations with or without notes ; Ch. Bruston, 1865; W. Kay, C 2 ), 1874; E. Reuss, 1875 (French), 1893 (German); Dyserinck, 1877 (Dutch); De Witt, 1894 (New York), and i(new translation) 1891; E. Kautzsch, 1893; G. Bickell, Die Dichtungen tier Hebrder(&, der Psalter), 1883, from a revised and metrically arranged text. [Fr. W. Schultz, in KGK, 1888; edited by H. Kessler, 1899; Fr. Baethgen, 1892; ( 2 >, 1897; Kirkpatrick (in Cambr. Bible), vol. i., 1891 ; vol. ii., 1895 ; vol. iii., 1901 ; B. Duhm, 1899. S. Minocchi (Italian), 1895 ; E. G. King, pt. i., 1898 ; J. Wellhausen, ET by Furness, J. Taylor, and Paterson, in SBOT. 1898 ; S. R. Driver, The Parallel Psalter, being the Prayerbook Version of the Psalms and a New Version . . . with an Intro duction and Glossaries (1898).

iv. Articles and monographs. (See the introductions of Driver, Konig, Cornill, Baudissin, and the OT Theologies of Schultz, Smend, etc.) Delitzsch, Symbolae ad psalmos ilhtstrandos isagogicae (1846); Ehrt, Abfassungszeit u. Abschluss des Psalters zur Priifung der Frage nach Makkabiierpsalmen, 1869; J. Muhlmann, Zur Frage der makkab. Psalmen, 1891 ; H. Graetz, Die Tempelpsaimen, MGWJ 27 [1878] 217^ ; Biichler, Zur Gesch. der Tempelmusik u. der Tempelpsaimen, ZATIV 19 [1899] g6jf. ; Lagarde, Orientalia, 2 [1880] 13-27 ; Baethgen s articles on the old versions, JP T for 1882, and on Theodore of Mopsuestia, ZATW for 1885, 1886, 1887 (see 46, 48); F. Giesebrecht, Ueber die Abfassungszeit der Psalters, ZATIV \ [1881] 276-332 (see col. 3928, n. 2); M. Kopfstein, Die Asaphpsalmen untersucht (1881); John Forbes, Studies in the Book of Psalms, 1888; Kessler, Die asaphitische Psalmengritppe untersucht, 1889 (as to Maccabaean pss.) ; T. K. Abbott, The alphabetical arrangement of Pss. 9 and 10, etc. Hermathena, 1899; 'Critical notes', ibid., 1891, pp 65+ (see 12:6, 40:8, 59:10-11, etc.); C. G. Montefiore, 'The Mystic Passages in the Psalms', JOR Jan. 1889, pp. 143^ ! R- Smend, Ueb. das Ich der Psalmen, ZATW 8 [1888] 49-1475 G. Beer, F. Coblenz, H. de la Roy, D. Leimdorfer, referred to above ( 6) ; Ad. Neu- bauer, The Authorship and the Titles of the Psalms, etc., Studia Biblica, 2 [1890] 1-58; W. Campe, Das Verhdltniss Jeremias zu den Psalmen, 1891 ; WRS, The Psalter, OTJCP), 1892, pp. 188-225 ; Isid. Loeb, La Litterature des pautires dans la Bible (1892); J. Koberle, Die Tempelsdnger im AT, 1899 ; I. K. Zenner, Die Chorgesdnge im B. der Psalmen, 1896 ; Che. OPs. (1891); The Book of Psalms, its origin, and its relation to Zoroastrianism, Semitic Studies in Memory of Alex. Kohut, 1897, pp. 111-119; Aids to the Devout Study of Criticism, 1892 ; The Christian Use of the Psalms, 1899 ; W. T. Davison, The Praises of Israel(iBgj; ( 2 ), 1897); Budde, TLZ, 1896, cols. 56i/~. (review of Wellhausen s Psalms); B. Jacob, Beitrage zu einer Kinleitung in die Psalmen, ZA TIV 16[i896] 129-181 265- 291; 17 [1897] 48-80 263-279; 18 [1898] 99-120; J. Halevy, REJ 22 26 (Ps. 9); ib. 19 i (Ps. 68) ; Rev. Sent., 1893, etc. (Ps. 22 etc.); W. Staerk, Zur Kritik der Psalmeniiberschriften, ZATWIS [i892] 9 i-i 5 i; W. Riedel, Zur Redaktion des Psalters, ZATW 19 [1890] 169.^; A. Merx, Ps. 9 u. lOund anderes Makkabaische, Festschrift zu Ehren von Daniel Clnvolson, 1899, pp. 198^ ; B. Stade, Die messianische Hoffnung im Psalter, ZTK, 1892, pp. 369-413 (reprinted in Akad. Reden u. Abhandlungeii); A. Rahlfs, jy und \yy in den Psalmen, 1892 ; W. Sanday, On the date of the Psalter, Oracles of God, 1891, pp. \zgff.\ cp Inspira tion, 170 ff. (see $ 21) ; G. B. Gray, JQR, July 189?, pp. 658^ on the royal psalms (see 24) ; Wellhausen, Bemerkungen zu den Psalmen, Skizzen 6 (1899) 163-187; J. D. Bruce, The Anglo-Saxon version of the Book of Psalms commonly known as the Paris Psalter (1894; see 46); G. Wildeboer, in Feest- bundelaan M. /. de Goeje [1891], 45-56 (on 16 1-4) ; Nestle,/fl 10 [1891] 151 /. (6831 [30]); Exfi.T. 8287 (126); ZATW 19 182 (103 5); 20i6 7 >: (Hab. 3 19 m relation to the Psalter); Nestle and Wildeboer, ibid., 16323 17 i8o(17 12) ; Che. ZA TW 19 [1899] 156 (682831); Expos. 9 sth s. [1899] 252-263 (on text of the psalms; also specially on 39); 3 6th s. [1901] 115-117 (49n 10923); Exp.T. 8236336 (126); 9 5 i 9 y: (568); 10i 4 i f. (452 [3]); Schwally, ZATW 11 [1891] 258^. (Ps. 12 9 35 3 16 etc.); Bu. Exp.T. 8 [1897] 202^ (10 1); 12 [1901] 285 ff. (Ps. 14 and 53); Van Gilse, Th.T Wqbff. (Ps. 84) ; W. Diehl, Ps. 47, (dissertation) 1893; Peters, JBL 11 [1892] 49-52 (6812-15; 11827); W. E. Barnes, Expos., 1898, pp. 303^ (137); D. A. Walker, JBL 17 [1898] 204.7: (121 i); G. A. Barton, Amer. Journ. Theol. 3 [1899] 740^ (date of Ps. 44) ; J. Derenbourg, ZATW 1 [1881] 3327: (16 1-4); REJ 6 161 (84); J. Doller, Theol. Qnartalschrift, 22 [1900] 174^ (22); Rosenthal, Sonderbare Psalmenakrosticha, ZATW \ [1896] 40 (9-10) ; B. Jacob, ZA TW 17 [1897] 93-90 (12 7) ; W. S. Pratt, JBL 19 [1900] 189^ (45, very elaborate, see 33); W. Rothstein, Ps. 78, Theol. St. Kr. 1901, Heft i ; see also German ed. of Dr. Introd. (on Psalms); Couard, Problem der Theodicee in der Ps. 373973, Theol. St. Kr. 1901, pp. \off.

W. R. S., 1 [2], 7-14 [16], 48-49 ii. T.K.C., 3, 5-6, 15, 17-47, 49 iii