Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Psalms
(Show All Books)
Verse Commentaries:
PSALMS
by
CARL BERNHARD MOLL, D.D.
General Superintendent In Königsberg, Prussia
TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN, WITH ADDITIONS.
by
Rev. CHARLES A. BRIGGS, Rev. JOHN FORSYTH, D.D., Rev. JAMES B. HAMMOND, Rev. J. FRED, McCURDY;
together with
A NEW VERSION OF THE PSALMS
and
PHILOLOGICAL NOTES
by
REV. THOMAS J. CONANT, D.D.
VOL. IX. OF THE OLD TESTAMENT: CONTAINING THE BOOK OF PSALMS.
PREFACE BY THE GENERAL EDITOR
_______________
“The mighty convulsions of the present war, while they have cast down a glittering throne from its proud elevation, have buried, too, much unobtrusive and quiet happiness, and have opened wounds that must long keep bleeding. Yet, from out of desolation and tears, does the goodness of the Eternal evoke renewed safety and a joyful future for a people tried and purified in the fire of affliction. Nor can we fail to discern in the events of those days a visitation of God. Many an ear, which has long been accustomed to other sounds, has heard the footsteps of the Almighty as He marches through the world in judgment, and has been inclined to listen to the word of the only true and living God. And many a hand, too, will be stretched out, with special eagerness, for the Book of Psalms, full as it is of those poems, of which such a poet as Byron said, that they are as lofty as heaven and deeper than the ocean. From such fulness as this has the Church ever drawn, and it affords instruction as well as delight, to trace through the course of the ages its inexhaustible adaptation to the needs of the people of God, to the varying tastes of different periods, and to the progress of the science of interpretation. May its own teachings and the accompanying remarks and suggestions realize the aim of the Bibelwerk, and afford spiritual aid to the brethren in the ministry.
In the department of Practical Exposition we have now further to note: Der Psalter, erklärt von L. Harms, weil. Pastor in Hermannsburg, 1800 (The Psalter explained by L. Harms, late Pastor in Hermansburg, 1869). Caspari, Des Gottesfürchtigen Freud und Leid, Wochenpredigten über den Psalter (The Joy and Sorrow of those who fear God; Weekly Sermons on the Psalter), with a preface by Delitzsch, 1870. W. Stern, Fünfzehn Messianische Psalmen, für Verständniss, Belehrung und Erbauung der Freunde des göttlichen Wortes erklärt, 1870 (Fifteen Messianic Psalms, explained for the enlightenment, instruction, and edification of the friends of the Divine Word).
In the department of Textual Criticism we have to mention that the Monumenta Sacra Inedita, published by Const. Tischendorf, contain in Vol. IV. of the Nova Collectio, 1869, the Psalterium Turicense, important for the criticism of the Text of the Septuagint. It was written upon purple parchment, in silver and gold, about the 7th century. It consists of 223 leaves, and comprises 118 Psalms, together with 9 Biblical Hymns and 1 Church Hymn. Its readings show more agreement with the Cod. Alex. than with the Cod. Vat., and often confirm those of the Aldine and Complutensian texts. The relation which it exhibits to one of the correctors of the Cod. Sinait. is worthy of special attention. The insertion, in elegant red letters, of the first word of each verse in Latin from the Vulgate of Jerome, by the side of the Greek Text, goes to show that it was executed in the West.”
I had a strong desire to prepare the Commentary on the Psalter myself, but could not command time. To avoid delay, I divided the work among several scholars, as follows:
The Introduction was prepared by the Rev. James B. Hammond, with additional Notes by the Rev. Charles A. Briggs.
Psalms 1-41, , 51-72, by the Rev. Charles A. Briggs, Pastor at Roselle, New Jersey.
Psalms 42-50, by the Rev. John Forsyth, D. D., Chaplain and Professor of Ethics in the National Military Academy at West Point, New York. Dr. F. had assumed the entire second Book, but could not finish his task in time, on account of his removal to West Point.
Psalms 73-150, by the Rev. J. Fred. McCurdy, of Princeton, New Jersey. In this last part, Dr. Green, Professor of Hebrew and O. T. Exegesis in the Princeton Theological Seminary, has taken special interest, and aided his friend, Mr. McCurdy, with linguistical and exegetical helps from his own library and other sources.
The contributors were instructed carefully to consult the well-known German Commentaries of Hupfeld, Ewald, Delitzsch, Hengstenberg, as well as the English and American works of Perowne, Wordsworth, Alexander, Barnes, and others. The Homiletical department has been condensed to make room for extracts from English sources, including Spurgeon’s Treasury of David, as far as published.
As to the text, I have given the reader the benefit of two translations. The Authorized Version has been retained as the basis of the Commentary, but arranged according to the laws of Hebrew parallelism and the stanza divisions of Moll.
The New Version of the Psalms, with brief philological notes, which follows the Commentary of Moll, is the work of the veteran Hebrew scholar, Dr. Conant, of Brooklyn. It is substantially the same with that originally prepared by the author for the “American Bible Union,” but differs from it by numerous corrections in the renderings, suggested by further comparison of the Hebrew text, and certain changes in form, and additional matter, to adapt it to the present work; namely, the use of the termination th for the 3d pers. sing. of the verb, and of a small initial letter in lines continuing a sentence; and the addition of critical and philological notes, at the end of each Psalm, on points of more special interest and difficulty.
A revision of the English Scriptures intended for public and devotional use should, in my opinion, retain the idiom of our Authorized Version, and depart from its grammar and vocabulary as rarely and as little as is consistent with the true meaning of the original and the present state of the English language. But the merits of a version which forms part of a critical commentary, must be measured by the degree of its fidelity to the original Hebrew, and not to King James’ or any other translation. Judged by this standard, Dr. Conant’s version and notes will be found a very valuable addition to this commentary.
By these numerous additions the volume on the Psalms exceeds both Parts of the German original by 264 pages, and is much larger than any other volume of the English edition of Lange. Nevertheless, the price is the same.
The Psalter is the first Hymn-Book of the Church, and will outlive all other hymn-books. Its treasury of pious experience and spiritual comfort will never be exhausted. And as it will continue to be used in public worship, and for private devotion everywhere, so commentary will follow commentary to the end of time. May this volume contribute its share towards a fuller understanding and application of the Psalms.
Philip Schaff
_______________
INTRODUCTION
§ 1. Canonical Position And Title
The Position of the Psalter among the Hagiographa is in accordance with its nature, not so much on account of the lateness of its completion, as rather its thorough-going joy and peculiar lyrical character which springing from the soil of revelation, in the sacred history of Israel; nourished by the revealed word of Jehovah in closest connection with the public worship of the covenant people, discloses the throbbing heart of the Israelites’ life of faith, and speaks the language of revelation as subjectively appropriated by the inmost feelings. The position of the Psalter among the Hagiographa does not at all indicate that it was esteemed inferior to the “Prophets,”—the second great division of the Hebrew canon (embracing the prophetic books and those historical books following the Thorah). The view of some theologians, that there were different degrees of inspiration among the sacred writings, at least in the form which ascribed the origin of the Hagiographa simply to the Holy Spirit, whilst the remaining canonical books were ascribed to the Prophetic Spirit (Carpzov, Introduct. i. 25), was an unhistorical theory of a few Rabbis (Hävernick, Einleitung i. 66 ff). For the Holy Spirit was frequently and expressly represented as inspiring the Prophets; the term “Holy” Spirit was explained by the term “Prophetic” Spirit; and the appellation “Prophets” was frequently given to the Hagiographa and by Josephus (Contr. Ap. i. 8) even to the historical books. Moreover, not only were the legal prescriptions ordained for the Prophets extended to the Hagiographa, but all the writers of the Psalms were expressly numbered among the Prophets (Herzfeld iii. 17) for the reason that the Bible designates them as Prophets and seers, 1Ch_25:1 sq.; 2Ch_29:30; 2Ch_35:15; 1Sa_5:10. The Targum of Jonathan on the latter passage reverses the expression and styles the utterance of that which the prophetic Spirit inspires the “making of psalms.” According to the fourfold Ethiopic division of the Old Testament into Octateuch, Kings, Solomon and Prophets, the Psalms were classed with the second division.
From the Alexandrian version originated also the title Psalter ( øáëôÞñéïí , Old German Salter), a collective term for the “Book of Psalms” (Luk_20:42; Act_1:20), or “The Psalms” (Luk_24:44). The latter word originally meant the music and playing of a string instrument; the former, the instrument itself; then by transfer the song sung to it, finally the collection of these songs, as Euthymius Zigabenus (Prœf. in Psalm. Ed. Le Moyne, pp. 172) rightfully remarked. It corresponds fully to the Hebrew mizmôr, which occurs, however, only in the title of particular Psalms, and not as a title of the collection. It does not appear at all in the plural form in the Bible, being simply used to indicate the recital of certain Psalms (vid. § 8, 2). The contents, and especially the religious character of these songs, is brought out more prominently by the word teffiloth. In Psa_72:20 all the preceding Psalms are collectively designated by this word as “prayers of David,” although Psalms 17 is the only one within this division in which it is found in the superscription (Septuag. ðñïóåõ÷Þ ). Later still, it characterizes Psalms 86, 90, 102, 142, as also Hannah’s Psalm of praise, 1Sa_21:1. The title tehillim is the usual superscription of the entire collection, in shortened form tillim, tillin, tilli, sometimes with, sometimes without sefer, i.e. (Book of) Hymns, which designation Philo and Jerome also employ. The Masora employed the plural sefer tehilloth, and also constructed from the same root the form hallêla, but only to designate Psalms 113-119, and not the entire Psalter, as since Buxtorf has been often erroneously stated (cf. Delitzsch Commentar. ii. 530). [The Psalter is still the common Prayer and Hymn Book of the Christian Church, as it was that of the Jews.—P. S.]
That these songs were designed to glorify God, is strikingly indicated by this superscription. The word occurs however with this special reference only in Psalms 145. (Septuag. áἴíåóéò ), but its appropriation as the title of the whole book, points to the fact, that we are not dealing with a lyrical Anthology of the Hebrews (De Wette), but with the original hymn-book, especially designed for the worship of God in the congregation of Israel. Vid. further § 3 and 5.
§
Neither are we obliged to explain those cases, where other persons, than he, are referred to with Lamed in the superscriptions, by assuming that those persons were the subjects of, or the occasions of his writing these Psalms; nor that David was prophetically speaking in their stead. This is quite as ungrammatical as it is unhistorical. For the Lamed before the proper name does not always indicate strictly the authorship, but properly relationship or dependence. We shall have occasion to make use of this remark in those cases where the contents of the Psalm correspond neither with the personality nor the period of the one, whose name it bears. The Psalm may be referred to him perhaps in a wider sense as being composed after his model or in his style; or the reference is to the musical director or the choir (e.g., Psalms 39.), to which the Psalm had been given for practice and recital. In most cases, however, the ì prefixum indicates the author, and there are historical grounds for the view that other historical persons than David, distinguished likewise in the domain of sacred song, were by this designation to be put in the same relation to certain Psalms, and that it was by no means the intention of the authors of the superscriptions to make David the author of all the Psalms. And when the collection is generally designated as a Davidic composition, or when, as in later days, it was superscribed or collectively characterized in the language of the Church as the Psalter of David, or abbreviated as at the end of the Ethiopic translation, e.g., Finitus est David (Dorn De psalterio Ethiop. 1825, p. 9)—or when in occasional citations it is briefly called David; these are not historical or critical statements, but simply show a prevailing usage of certain periods, traces of which are found as early as 2Ch_7:6. Comp. 2Ch_23:18; Ezr_3:10. Its justification is found in the maxim “A potiori fit denominatio.” It probably originated from the statement at the close of Psalms 72, which was also the final statement of the oldest collection of Psalms. Comp. § 4. A spurious writing, called “David,” is mentioned in Constit. Apost., vi. 16; but is otherwise unknown.
From a historical point of view, however, there are but seventy-two Psalms ascribed to David by superscriptions of the kind referred to. These are partly associated with statements concerning their historical occasion, contents, and purpose, and their liturgical and musical use (comp. § 8 and 12). The value of the superscriptions is disputed, their origin being uncertain, their contents frequently obscure, if not entirely unintelligible, whilst their influence in enabling us to understand the Psalms in question is unimportant. It is not surprising, therefore, that doubts should have been advanced respecting them as early as the time of Theodoras Mops. But the thoroughgoing doubts of their authenticity which have been advanced since Vogel, (Inscrip. psalmorum serius demum additas videri, 1767) which with De Wette and still more decidedly Hupfeld, have advanced to the unreasonable extreme of entirely rejecting the use of these titles as unreliable and therefore worthless, as being for the most part additions which have originated from the mere conjectures of later readers and compilers (so previously Rudinger), are entirely unreasonable.
The assumption on the other hand, that all these superscriptions originated with the authors of the Psalms, and are therefore inseparable from the text, cannot be consistently maintained. It can, at most, be held only of a few, and it is all the more important, that individual cases should be strictly scrutinized. This has been done in earlier times by Venema, and more recently by all the most eminent commentators. Useful remarks on these critical investigations may be found in Lutz, Biblische Hermeneutik, S. 461, who, however, regards the most of these superscriptions as later scholia. On the whole an opinion favorable to the antiquity and value of these superscriptions has again been wrought out, which ascribes them for the most part to tradition, and indeed a very ancient one, because they were generally unintelligible to the Septuag., were variously constructed, and divided by these translators, and sometimes in their reference to the occasion and contents of the Psalms, they rather produce difficulties than remove them. Comp. Fr. Bleek, Einleitung in das A. T., 1860, S. 613 f. There is now a disposition to admit, that some of them may have originated with the authors themselves. It is true, that among the Israelites, poets were still less accustomed than among the Arabians and Persians to prefix their names to their songs. But when we compare the superscription of Psalms 60. with 2Sa_1:18, we cannot deny the possibility of David’s having done so; and when this is seen to have been the case with the prophet Habakkuk (Psa_3:1), shall we not conclude that the Psalmist also may have done the same? The writings of Sonntag on the Tituli Psalmorum 1687, Celsius 1718, and Irhof 1728, have become antiquated. J. A. Starck, Davidis aliorumque poetarum Hebr. carminum libr. V. (incomplete), 1776, 1, 2, p. 411 ff., however, is still worthy of attention. The best work is Delitzsch Symbolœ ad Psalmos illustrandos isagogicœ, 1846. He points in his Comm. II., 393, to the “Annals of David” as a work different from the books of Samuel, and yet made use of as one of their sources.
Moreover the Psalms which bear the name of David, contain an abundance of references, expressions, and peculiar turns, which do not at all make the impression of mere poetical figures, but bear the stamp of the liveliness and truth of individuality, they refer to personal experiences and frames of mind, and the statements of the sacred Scriptures about David’s fortune, character, and utterances, often present the only key to their historical interpretation. J. J. Stähelin (Das Leben Davids, 1866) acknowledges this, under many limitations, it is true, while according to Zunz (Die synagogale Poesie des Mittelalters, 1855, S. 4) they are only the legends of the chiefs of the Levites, and those who are said to have been the originators of the temple music, who made David the author of the Psalms, and even raised him to the dignity of a seer. These Psalms are as manifold in contents, tone, and color, as the agitated life of David himself, and reflect most instructively, as in a mirror, the changing emotions of a heart as tender as it was brave. We hear his cry of anguish and his shout of joy; the tearful wail of sorrow and the courageous expression of his trust in God; the penitential prayer of the broken-hearted sinner, the joyful thanksgiving of the favored one, the wisdom of an experienced sufferer who knows that his life is hid in God, the shepherd’s voice of the prince, the royal word of the hero, the prophetic utterance of the seer. And here let us remember, that the rise of a sacred literature among God’s people of Israel is not simply a matter of literary and historic interest, but an important factor in the history of the Divine Revelation and the kingdom of God. The person of David, moreover, occupies such a prominent place in this history, that, in connection with his poetical talent, clearly attested by his song of mourning at Jonathan’s death, 2Sa_1:19-27; his youthful musical endowments according to 1Sa_16:17 f.; the daily cultivation of his art according to 1Sa_18:10, the assertion of Lengerke (Comm. p. 26. sq.) that David was not a religious poet, is as groundless as the statement of Vatke (Bib. Theol., I. 292) that not a single Psalm can with any certainty be put in the age of David and Solomon. On the other hand, Delitzsch’s remark is worthy of consideration (Comm. i. 59): “As the New Testament canon contains no writings of the Apostles before the day of Pentecost, so the Old Testament canon contains none of the songs of David prior to his anointing. Only when he has become ‘the anointed of the God of Jacob’ is he the sweet singer of Israel, on whose tongue is the word of Jehovah (2Sa_23:1 sq.).” Appropriate remarks are to be found in Fr. W. Krummacher’s “David, der König von Israel; ein biblisches Lebensbild mit fortlaufenden Beziehungen auf die Davidischen Psalmen,” 1866.
We have but a single psalm (90) of a date anterior to the time of David: one which in contents and language bears the mark of great antiquity, assigned in the superscription to Moses. Two Psalms are ascribed to Solomon, 72 and 127, against which nothing decisive can be urged, however difficult the removal of some objections may be, and notwithstanding the fact, that Psalms 127. has no superscription in the Septuag.
A prominent place in this department is taken by Asaph in the recollection of history (2Ch_29:30; Neh_12:46). Twelve Psalms in our collection bear his name. Pss. 1. and 73–83. These cannot all, however, be assigned to Asaph, the Levite, son of Barechia, the renowned chorister of David. For Psalms 80. belongs to the time of Jehoshaphat; Pss. 75. and 76. to the time of Hezekiah; Pss. 74. and 79. to the beginning of the Chaldæan exile (comp. Keil in Hävernick’s Handbuch der Einl., III. 213 sq.). It has therefore been generally assumed, that Asaph is here a family name. This view is favored by the circumstance, that this family was in existence at the time of Jehoshaphat, 2Ch_20:14, and that of the 245 singers, male and female, who returned from the exile (Neh_7:47), the majority were Asaphites; 128 according to Ezr_2:41, and indeed 148 according to Neh_7:44. The conjecture that an imitation of Asaph’s style simply is indicated by this superscription is less probable. The entire group has, in fact, a certain family likeness, not only in its freshness and liveliness of expression, and in individual peculiarities of its lofty style, but especially in a sort of prophetic way of treating historical events and the recognition of Divine providence in them.
It must however be admitted, that the imitation of a style stamped with the peculiarities of Asaph within his family, has a parallel in the common features of the Psalms of the sons of Korah.
Eleven Psalms are ascribed in the superscriptions to the sons of Korah, viz.: 42–49, 84, 85, 87, 88. (vide Carpzov, Introductio II., 97). Psalms 88. ought probably to be excluded from this group. The others, in the longings which they express for the worship of God in the holy city, have some similarity, it is true, with many of the Psalms of David, yet we are not, on that ground to ascribe their authorship to David, nor to suppose that their musical execution simply was assigned to the sons of Korah (Eichhorn). For they are not a mere echo of the songs of David. On the contrary, they move quite characteristically, with a lofty style, full of earnestness of soul, in songs of praise to Elohim, the king enthroned in Jerusalem. And while in the superscriptions of the Psalms of Asaph the family disappears in the name of its renowned ancestor and pattern, the personality of Korah does not appear at all in those of the group which bears the name. For Heman the Ezrahite, alluded to in Psalms 88, is not the leader of the Kohrite choir, 1Ch_6:18 sq., but one of the four wise men of Israel, 1Ki_5:11, of the tribe of Judah. We must also bear in mind that Korah, the great-grandson of Levi, was taken away by a Divine judgment, Numbers 16; that representatives of his family, however, were not only preserved (Num_26:11), but were close adherents of David (1Ch_13:6) especially the watchmen at the gates of the temple (1Ch_9:17; 1Ch_24:1-19; Neh_11:19), furnishing also a portion of the singers and musicians of the sanctuary (1 Chronicles 25.) The latter are alluded to in the time of Jehoshaphat, 2Ch_20:19; the former even after the exile.
Psalms 89. has a strong resemblance to the Psalm of Heman the Ezrahite, Psalms 88. The superscription assigns it to Ethan the Ezrahite, who also appears to belong to the tribe of Judah, (1Ki_5:11; 1Ch_2:6), and is only with violence identified by a few commentators with Ethan the Merarite, of the tribe of Levi, 1Ch_15:17; 1Ch_6:29 sq., because he is mentioned alongside of Asaph and Heman as the leader of the Kohrite choir. There are fifty anonymous Psalms in our collection. Thirty-four of these have no superscription whatever, whence they have in the Talmud been called the orphaned Psalms. At all events, they are not to be assigned to the authors of the Psalms immediately preceding, according to the opinion of the Talmud, Origen, Hilarius, and Jerome, which has been controverted in detail by Jahn Einleitung II., 706. The Septuag. ascribes the authorship of several of them to the prophets Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Haggai, and Zechariah, apparently as mere conjectures (vid. Eichhorn Einleit., § 622).
§
These remarks are derived from the facts which reflect the historic course of their composition. Their historical origin synchronizes neither with the beginning of revelation nor of religious lyrics. Both are older than the establishment of the Israelitish Church. First among them resounds that most ancient of Psalms, “the prayer of Moses, the man of God,” as yet without strophaic members, yet striding with threatening tread above all the heights, and above all the depths of life. The Church shows itself to be the birth-place of the Psalter; its founder was the first who interpreted her emotions. But his powerful and dread-inspiring voice still remained for centuries solitary within its domain. Not until after the centuries of severe conflicts and complications which succeeded the entrance of the covenant people into the land of promise; not until the reformatory labors of Samuel, and indeed not without the influence of the Schools of the Prophets founded by him, with their exercises in music and in song; not until the establishment of the kingdom, when Israel had gained through rich experiences a new position in the world; and then in equally great strength, abundance and beauty, the sacred song resounded from David’s harp, and in this king of promise the singing and composition of Psalms found a master and a patron. Four thousand Levites, the entire fourth division of them, exercised their official functions as singers and musicians under his direction in the service of God; now in the tabernacle upon Zion, now in Gibeon, the place of the Mosaic tabernacle of the covenant, 1Ch_15:16. So likewise an organized culture was maintained under the choristers Asaph, Heman and Ethan, (identical probably with Jeduthun), 1 Chronicles 24. No wonder, then, that the Davidic type of Psalms invited others to imitation, down to the latest times, nor that incited partly by the stimulus of new forms of culture, types so strongly characteristic, as those of Asaph and Korah should have arisen. Let us add to that which has already been remarked in § 2 concerning the character of these groups of Psalms, that both manifest their adaptation to the Church and to the worship at Jerusalem, associated with definite historic events. In the Psalms of Asaph, however, God appears predominant as the judge of His enemies, and repeatedly as speaking, whilst He is presented in the songs of Korah rather as the King who watches over Jerusalem. Comp. J. J. Stähelin, Zur Einleitung in die Psalmen, 1859, S. 14 f. Spezielle Einleitung in die Kanon. Bücher des A. T., 1862, S. 381, 391.
But we see from the history of Solomon how insufficient mere poetical endowments were to make a Psalmist. For this king was celebrated for his wisdom, and highly praised as a writer and a poet, even if the assertion of 1Ki_5:12, (1Ki_4:32) be not, that he composed 3000 proverbs and 1005 songs, but that he simply spake them. In any case the superscription to the Song of Solomon refers, according to Semitic usage (Ewald) to still other songs of Solomon. Among the Psalms, however, there are but two which bear his name.
This striking circumstance is explained by the character of the other Solomonic writings and by the statement of 1Ki_5:13 (1Ki_4:33) that he spake of trees, cattle, birds, creeping things and fishes. Whether this is an allusion to his acquaintance with natural history (Keil in Hävernick’s Einl.) or to secular poetry (Hengst.) or to proverbs and fables, classified according to the animal kingdom (Hupf.), in either case nature and human life were the subjects of which he chiefly treated, and proverbial wisdom (chokhma) especially in the form of sentences (maschal) is associated with his name, as the Psalms are with that of his father David, and both with good historic reasons. According to a statement in the Septuag. appended to 1Ki_8:53, the matter there narrated, had been made the subject of a song.
The influence of David was so strongly felt still later acording to Amo_6:5, that the secular poetry and music bore traces of it. There the reference is to those who practiced tricks with the accompaniment of the harp, and believed themselves to equal David in their musical performances, or, according to another view devised for themselves similar things to those of David. But although prophetic discourse was now being powerfully developed, and although in the period of the Kings we have evidence of the exercise of the poetic art, we possess but two Psalms of the days of Solomon, those of the Ezrahites, Heman and Ethan. During the entire period of the division of the kingdom we have but two revivals of the composition of Psalms of the Asaphic and Kohrite types. For such Psalm-like fragments as Jonah 2, Isaiah 12, Habakkuk 3, are but transformations or free renderings of older songs. As such truly they are important witnesses both of the presence and of the vitality of the Psalms in the hearts of pious Israelites. Both of these revivals, however, fall precisely within the period of the restoration and purification of the worship of Jehovah, first under Jehoshaphat, then under Hezekiah, both times immediately following great deeds of judgment and deliverances of the Lord. Jehoshaphat had the education of the people especially in view, 2Ch_17:7 sq., Hezekiah [“the Pisistratus of Israelitish literature.” Delitzsch.—J. B. H.], the preservation of the remains of their literature and the restoration of their ancient sacred music and the liturgical use of the Psalms, 2Ch_29:25 sq. He was himself also a poet, intimately familiar with the Book of Job, as is clear from Isaiah 38.
Entirely in harmony with this is the fact that during the exile the composition of Psalms was not entirely suspended. Psalms 102. certainly belongs to this period, and others readily remind us of the prophet Jeremiah, although not to such an extent as Hitzig assumes, (Begriff der Kritik, S. 63 ff.) But their harps still hung upon the willows, Psa_137:2, and a full and fresh stream of new Psalms burst forth from the heart of the Church, only when led back to their native land by the hand of God, and permitted to pray in the restored temple. The most of the Psalms in the last two books belong to this period of the second temple. The question now arises whether the religious exaltation of the Jewish people in the time of the Maccabees caused a new harvest of sacred song to sprout forth. Hitzig, von Lengerke and Olshausen, believe this to have been extensively the case, as Rüdinger, Venema, Bengel, et al. had previously maintained. The reasons for an opposite opinion are very fully developed by Ewald (Jahrb. der bibl. Wissenschaft, ii. 20 f.) and by E. Meyer, Geschichte der poet. Nationalliteratur der Heb. 1856, S. 496 sq., 571 sq. It is going too far, however, to affirm the impossibility of such being the case. The Psalm-like passages 1Ma_7:37 sq., 1Ma_9:21; 2Ma_1:24 sq., 2Ma_14:35 sq., 2Ma_15:22 sq., have, it is true a very prosaic character, and various opinions may be held concerning Sir_1:22-24, from which Martin Rinkart drew our hymn, “Nun danket alle Gott.” Thenius (Studien und Krit. 1854, Heft. 3), regards these words as the only proof of a temple Psalm of this period. Delitzsch (Zur Geschichte der nachbibl. Jüdischen Poesie, 1836, S. 182) regards it as a pithy fragment of a liturgical thanksgiving hymn of the Church. D. F. Fritzsche (Exeg. Handbuch zu den Apokryph., v. 303) however, regards it as the epilogue to the praise of the Father, a summons to the reader to give thanks. A prophetico-lyrical exaltation cannot but be recognized, however, in the pseudo-epigraphic Psalter of Solomon, consisting of eighteen Psalms, translated from the Aramaic into Greek, in Fabricius God. pseudoepigr. V. T. 1, 917, which Ewald Jahrbuch xi. 215; Geschichte, 3 Aufl. iv. 392, and Dillmann, in Herzog, Real-Encycl. xii. 305, place in the period of the Maccabees; Movers, in Kathol. Kirchenlexikon von Wetze and Welter 1:340, and Delitzsch, Comment, ii. 381, still later in the Herodian period, while Grätz, Geschichte der Juden iii. 3, 491, even regards it as Christian. We may also allude to the lyrical additions which have found their way from the Septuag. into the German Bible, as Apocryphal fragments belonging to Daniel and Chron. But all this furnishes no decisive answer to the question as to the existence of Maccabean Psalms in the canonical Psalter. Against such a supposition in general stands the circumstance, which even Hupfeld regards as decisive, that the Psalter was known as such as early as the time of the Chronicles ( Vid. § 4,) and the assumption of later interpolations is a pure hypothesis. Nevertheless, our decision in concreto must depend upon the result of our investigations in individual Psalms.
§
The bulk of the first book, which closes with Psalms 41, consists of thirty-seven Davidic Psalms, among which, exclusive of the two introductory Psalms, only two are anonymous, (10, 33) Jehovah is the prevailing name of God. The second book (Psalms 42-72) begins with seven Kohrite Psalms, their succession uninterrupted except by one (43) anonymous Psalm. [This is without doubt a part of Psalms 42—C. A. B.] Then follows an Asaphic Psalm (59) followed by a succession of eighteen Davidic Psalms, interrupted by two (66, 67), anonymous [these are likewise Davidic, vid. in loco.—C. A. B.], concluding after Psalms 71. (anonymous) [Psalms 71 belongs to Psalms 70, vid. in loco.—C. A. B.], with a Psalm of Solomon (72) The prevailing name of God in this group is Elohim. The third book (Psalms 73-79) begins with eleven Psalms of Asaph, followed by four Kohrite Psalms, with one Davidic Psalm interposed (86), closing with the Messianic Psalm of Ethan. Here the name of God is sometimes Jehovah and sometimes Elohim. The superscriptions frequently contain, not so often however as in the second book, brief historic references to the occasion of their composition, often, moreover, musical references. The fourth book (Psalms 90-106) begins with the prayer of Moses, and then, with the exception of two Psalms of David (101, 103) introduces only anonymous Psalms, with now and then a brief notice of the purpose of their composition. The only name of God in this collection is Jehovah, The fifth book, finally, (Psalms 107-150) begins with a Psalm without superscription introducing then, three Davidic Psalms, three hallelujah Psalms, six without superscriptions, followed by fifteen Psalms of degrees, among which one (127) bears the name of Solomon, and two (121, 133) the name of David;—then again one hallelujah Psalm, two without superscriptions, seven Davidic, and finally the four hallelujah Psalms, introducing the closing doxology. Here also Jehovah is the prevailing name of Deity.
It appears, even in this general sketch, that the arrangement is not a confused mixture of an accidental or opportune aggregation, and that no classification, either by the order of their composition, their subject matter, or their authorship, is consistently carried out. This fact is confirmed in considering the contents, origin, and date of particular Psalms. Now, although a very early liturgical use of the Psalms may be proven (vid. § 5), yet apart from the above-mentioned division into five books, by concluding doxologies, no liturgical or dogmatic principle of arrangement is manifest. Hippolytus states that this fivefold division (Ed. de Lagarde, p. 193) was made with reference to the Pentateuch. The entire rejection of such a motive by Jahn and De Wette, is without grounds. We may say with Delitzsch, “The Psalter is also a Pentateuch,—the echo of the books of Moses, from the heart of Israel;—it is the five books of the Church to Jehovah, as the Thorah is the five books of Jehovah to the Church.”
But while this reference was in the mind of the Jewish church, and actuated the Redacteur, who added the doxologies, probably with reference also to the symbolical significance of the number five (Stähelin, Spez. Einl., S. 379 f.) it allows no parallelization of the separate books, and explains, neither their connection nor their sequence. With still less propriety can we adopt the language of the Midrash on Psalms 1 : “Moses gave to the Israelites the five books of the Thorah, corresponding to which David gave them the five books of Psalms.” It can hardly be supposed that the present sequence and division of the whole collection was independent of preceding arrangements. It cannot certainly be shown that the first book was the oldest collection (Bengel), and that the four other books, originating from repeated gleanings, were successively added, (Jahn, De Wette, Hupfeld). Other combinations may be suggested, and attempts may be made at the discovery of special collections, with possible additions and supplements (vid. Berthold, Einl. V. 2020 f., Ewald, Poet. Bücher I., 187 f., Neue Ausarbeitung I.; 242 ff.; Jahrb IV., 252 f., VI. 20 f., and Delitzsch in Herzog’s Real-Encykl. XII., 267, who also alludes to Hofmann’s hypothesis of nine separate collections). Moreover it cannot be denied after the profound investigations of Delitzsch (Symbolœ, etc.) that it is more natural to ascribe to the hand of the last Redacteur the grouping in the second and third books of kindred Psalms of an earlier and later date, than to refer the rise of separate collections exclusively to later times or to assume a frequently repeated interpolation.
Although a classification of Psalms containing noticeably similar thoughts, or strikingly similar passages, especially at the beginning and close, has been proven in many series of Psalms, and rendered probable in others, yet we must admit that the last compiler (whom there is no reason for distinguishing from a Redacteur Herzfeld, III., 5, 6), arranged the entire material at his command according to certain points of view, and frequently violated the order of time in favor of an arrangement with reference to the subject matter. But this, however, could not have occurred except upon the basis of older collections, and in connection with classifications already existing.
Such a view is especially favored from the circumstance, that the second book concludes, after the doxology, with these words, “The prayers of David, the son of Jesse, are ended.” This sentence cannot have originated with the last compiler, for many Davidic Psalms are scattered through all the following books, singly, and in little groups. This sentence, then, points to another collection. There can also be no doubt that a collection of the Psalms of David, was begun soon after the death of the great royal singer (vid. Ewald’s Geschichte 3, Aufl. iii. 360.) This expression, no longer applicable, was still retained, and for proof that this is not without a parallel vid. Stähelin, Zur Einl. S. 12, in opposition to Hengstenberg, iv. 2, S. 267, and Keil in Hävernick, iii. 295. The doxology was naturally placed before this closing sentence, and gives to God the name of Jehovah Elohim, in conformity with the character of the second book, and in contrast with that of the first. Since these doxologies are of later origin and have simply a liturgical significance, they furnish nothing conclusive in regard to the age and origin of the individual collections. But it had not escaped the notice of the ancient Jewish teachers, that this collection, expressly characterized as Davidic, not only contains Psalms of unknown authorship, several Asaphic and Kohrite Psalms (and among the latter, some which unquestionably belong to a very late period); but that the concluding sentence which we are considering, is found at the end of a Psalm of Solomon. The enigma thus presented to the Jews is exemplified by the narrative in the Midrasch, on Psalms 3. “When Joshua Ben Levi undertook to revise the arrangement of the Psalms, an echo from heaven cried to him, ‘Wake not the slumberer!’ ” Many of the Psalms, doubtless, received their present position from the final redaction, although it is conjectural that individual transpositions and insertions were made at each succeeding addition of new groups, to the original stem, which we have sufficient reason to regard in general as the first, (Ewald) or the first and second books (Delitzsch). Hitzig (ii, p. 12) finds an intentional reference to the Sanhedrists and the purported number of interpreters, and the days occupied in their labor, in the number of the Ps. (72) with which the second book ends. (Josephus, Archäol. Xii. 2, 6, 10.)
After the time of Solomon, that of Jehoshaphat or, with still more likelihood that of Hezekiah, may be regarded as the probable period of such a compilation and revision. For we read not only that the men of Hezekiah made a copy of the proverbs of Solomon (Pro_25:1) but that he restored the use of the Psalms of David and of Asaph, 2Ch_29:30 sq. Carpzov, Introd. ii. 106 sq. The majority of the latter, however, are contained in the third book of the Psalms.
A subsequent collection of sacred literature took place under the direction of Nehemiah, 2Ma_2:13, in which the writings of David are especially alluded to, while in Zec_7:12, they are closely associated with the Law and the Prophets; and Ecc_12:12, in contrast to profane literature, refers to a collection of genuine wisdom. Similar collections occurred finally under Judas Maccabæus, 2Ma_2:14. This must also have been the period of the final collection. For, contrary to the assumption of Olshausen, et al., that we must come down to the times of Simon, the Hasmonean prince (143 to 135 b. c.) or to the time of John Hyrcanus (135–107 b. c.) this circumstance seems conclusive; that the Psalter was known as such, to the author of Chronicles, who wrote in the fourth century b. c., towards the end of the Persian rule, and was accepted into the canon, at the latest, in the times of Judas Maccabæus (Ewald, Geschichte vii. 428 sq.) It follows, moreover, from 1Ch_16:35, that the liturgical doxology which precedes Psalms 106. was also associated with it at that period. Hitzig naturally enough, reverses this relation, and supposes that the Psalmist drew from the Chronicles. He regards the High Priest, Alex. Jannœos, as the author of the present arrangement and the composer of Psalms 1, 2, as well as Psalms 150 and several others besides, and as having determined also the acceptance, the sequence and the division of the Psalms into five books.
Were the time of the Alexandrian translation of the Psalms definitely known, this would furnish a fixed starting-point. But even if we reject Herzfeld’s assumption (Geschichte iii. 470, who believes we have Maccabean Psalms in the Psalter) of a piecemeal translation not completed until a very late period, the time of the translation of the Psalms still remains very indefinite, if we suppose the translation of the Pentateuch—the oldest of all—to have begun under Ptolemaus Philadelphus (284–247.) The statement of the Talmud given by Frankel (Vorstudien zu der Septuaginta, 1841, S. 25 ff.) is not decisive. We can only say that the threefold division of the canonical Scriptures was in existence when the grandson of Sirach in Alexandria wrote the Prologue to his Greek translation of the book of Proverbs. But this would lead to no new result, even if the investigations of Grätz (in Frankel’s Monatschrift 1875, S. 46 f., with whom Fuerst agrees, Geschichte des Karäerthums, 1862, S. 132,) had established the fact that the Book of Proverbs was collected in the beginning of the third century b. c., or according to Horowitz, (Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 1865), about 250 b. c. For the word grandson must not be taken too precisely. The author of the Prologue states that he arrived in Egypt in the thirty-eighth year of Euergetes. Now since Ptolemy iii. Euergetes ruled only twenty-five years, (246–221), we are obliged to think of Ptolemy vii, Euergetes ii, who was associate regent 170 b. c., so that Jesus the Siracide could not have arrived in Egypt until the year 132. If we assume, on the other hand, that his own grandfather compiled the Book of Proverbs, its compilation could not have occurred earlier than between 180 and 170 b. c. (Fritzsche, et al.) Nor does the fact that the book of Proverbs contains distinct references to individual Psalms bring us any nearer a result (vid. Beiträge zur Einleitung in das A. T. von H. Gelbe, 1866, S. 4). This circumstance, however, is significant, that the Septuagint concludes with the apocryphal Psalm (151) on the victory of David over Goliath, which is designated in the superscription as, “A Psalm of David written with his own hand, not of the number of the Psalms ascribed to him.” The number of the canonical Psalms (150) was therefore fixed before the addition of this apocryphal Psalm. “And yet the translator finding it in existence, clearly proves that between his time and the conclusion of the Psalter, as found in the canon, a considerable period must have elapsed” (Ewald, 1:266, Neu. Ausarbeit.). Now the liturgical use of the Psalms encourages the assumption of a very early translation, while Hitzig’s conjecture that it was made after the translation of the prophets, has no other motive than the interest of his hypothesis. The Septuag. itself assumes that the time of Nehemiah was the period of the cessation of the composition of Psalms, vid. Dillmann (Jahrb. für deutsche Theol. 1858, S. 457).
The numbering of the Psalms is variously given. Many Hebrew manuscripts unite Psalms 1, 2, and likewise Psalms 42, 43, 116, 117 Psalms 118 is on the other hand, divided sometimes in two and sometimes in three. In many cases the entire number is set down at 149. Delitzsch, in fact, refers to a numbering found in a Hagadabook in which there are but 147 Psalms, corresponding to the years of Jacob’s life. The Septuag. likewise originally united the first two Psalms, and still like the Vulgate unites Psalms 9, 10, so that from Psalms 10-147 the numbering of the Septuagint remains one Psalm less than the Hebrew text, until it reaches the latter Ps. which it divides. By another variation Psalms 114, 115 are united, while Psalms 116 is divided. Attention must be paid to this in the citations of the Church fathers.
§
Whatever our conclusion respecting the use of Psalms 106 in 1 Chronicles 16, it, at least, establishes the custom of that period to sing Psalms in the temple on festal occasions (Hengstenb. iv. 1, 168). But the Chronicler must have been a contemporary of Ezra, or Nehemiah, in which case his labors fall between 536 and 400 b. c. (Hävernick, Keil, Movers, et al.) or he must have lived (from the genealogy 1Ch_3:18 f.), in the latter days of the Persian rule, or at the latest early in the Grecian period (Zunz, Ewald, Bertheau, Dillmann, Bleek, Stähelin). Now, in spite of the appearance of a didactic and parenectical treatment in his style, and the controversy concerning some of his statements, especially in our present text; his accounts are still regarded by our modern critics as essentially historical notwithstanding the opinions of De Wette and Gramberg to the contrary, (Stähelin, Spezielle Einl. in die kanon. Büher des A. T., 1862, S. 155). This is especially true of David’s regulations for worship, so that we may safely infer from the information given by the Chronicler, that the Psalms were in liturgical use during the period of the first temple. This is favored also by the vow of King Hezekiah to sing his songs in the house of the Lord, Isa_38:20, and apart from the prophet Jonah, by the remark in Jer_33:11, that the voice should be heard again of those who say, “Praise the Lord of Hosts, for the Lord is good, for His mercy endureth forever,” and of those who should bring the sacrifice of praise to the house of the Lord. Even R. H. Graf (Die geschichtl. Bücher des A. T., 1866, S. 245), whose general opinion of the Book of Chronicles, as a source of historical information, is so unfavorable, admits that they approach nearer to history in referring many of the regulations of the temple service to Hezekiah and Josiah than in ascribing them to David.
Aside from the conclusion to be drawn from 1 Chronicles 16 the formula employed in 1Ch_16:41, and reappearing 2Ch_5:13; 2Ch_7:13; 2Ch_20:21; Ezr_3:11, taken probably from Psalms 136, favors the view that the Psalms were liturgically employed during the period of the second temple, as songs for festal occasions. The same is true of the formula, “To sing with praise and thanksgiving,” which occurs frequently in connection with Ezra and Nehemiah, and which is certainly not without reference to the Hallelujah Psalms, and the “praise” in Psalms 105-107, 115, 136 (comp. Stähelin, Zur Einleit. in die Psalmen, § 3). Furthermore, the agreement of many Psalms, especially in the fourth and fifth books, with the prayers of Ezra 9 and Nehemiah 9; and finally the musical and liturgical remarks in the Psalms themselves, which are found, although in a somewhat enlarged and extended form, in the Septuag., which was composed during the period of the second temple, prove that the Psalms were at that time liturgically employed.
From the Talmud (Mischna, Tract, thamid; Gemara Tr. Kidduschim in Lud. de Dieu, Animadv. p. 389,) we learn more particularly, that on the first day of the week, at the morning sacrifice, Levites were appointed to sing Psalms 24; on the second day Psalms 48; on the third day Psalms 82; on the fourth day Psalms 92; on the fifth day Psalms 81; on the sixth day Psalms 93; on the seventh day Psalms 92. Respecting the ritual cf. § 11. For the chief and the intermediate feast days there were other Psalms prescribed concerning which tradition is partly at variance and partly silent. While, for example, at the present day, Psalms 65. is sung at the close of the feast of Tabernacles (schemini azereth) and the 29. on the feast of Pentecost, the Septuag. designates Psalms 29. for the close of the former festival, and the Talmud gives no account at all of the liturgy for the latter day, while the commentators are divided between Psalms 6, 12. Pss. 29:1,16; 94:16; 94:8; 81:7; 82:5 b. are assigned for the intervening days of the feast of Tabernacles. Psalms 30 was appointed to be sung on the presentation of the firstlings. Eighteen times in the year, viz., on the first two days of the Passover, on the eight days of Succoth, i.e., the feast of Tabernacles, and on the eight days of the chanuka or festival of the dedication of the Temple, introduced by Jud. Maccab., the hallel Psalms 113-118 was a part of the festal service. Even as early as the Alexandr. version, they bore the superscription, ἈëëçëïõÀá . This hallel, likewise called the Egyptian (hallel hammizri), was afterwards called the great hallel to distinguish it from the little hallel, in which Psa_115:1-12; Psa_116:1-11 were omitted. In the ancient ritual only Psalms 136, with its refrain repeated twenty-six times, “For his mercy endureth forever,” was called hallel haggadôl. In the Talmud and Midrash this title was also applied to Psa_135:4-21, and to Psalms 120-136. On the feast of the Passover the hallel was so divided, that Psalms 113, 114 were sung before the meal, before taking the second festal cup; Psalms 115-118 after the meal, after filling the fourth cup. At the time of the full moon, the hallel was customarily sung, although not legally prescribed (Tr. Soferim.)
As examples of the standing use of single verses of the Psalms at that period Delitzsch (Zur Geschichte, § 179), adduces, 1.) The hosanna which was sung by the priests, in marching around the altar of burnt offering, shaded with willow twigs, on the seven days of the Passover, the last day thereby receiving the name of the great hosanna; 2.) Psa_44:24, as a daily cry of the Levites in times of need and apostasy; 3.) Psa_127:1, which verse the nobles of Jerusalem used on the night preceding the day of atonement, in calling out to the High Priest repeatedly, lest sleep should overpower him.
After the destruction of the temple, prayer came to occupy more and more the place of sacrifice, and the synagogue service became the vital centre of Jewish life, “the only bearer and banner of their nationality, in the ruin of all their other institutions” (Zunz, Die gottesdienstl. Vorträge, S. 1). Its two parts consisted in the reading of the Scriptures a