Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadJames Hastings Dictionary of the Bible: Psalms
Subjects in this Topic:
PSALMS
1. Title and place in Canon.—The Book of Psalms is a collection of sacred poems, in large part liturgical in character and intended to be sung. The book belongs to the Kethubim or ‘Writings,’ i.e. the third and last group of the Jewish Scriptures. The order of the Writings was much less fixed than the order of the Law and the Prophets, the other two groups of Scriptures; but the Psalms in all cases come near the beginning of this group, and in the modern Hebrew printed Bibles, which follow the great majority of German MSS, they stand first. In placing the Psalms, together with the rest of the Writings, before the (‘Latter’) Prophets, the EV [Note: English Version.] has followed the Greek version; but in the internal arrangement of the Writings, the English and Greek versions differ from one another.
The title of this collection of poems is derived from the Greek version, in which the book is entitled in some MSS Psalmoi, in others Psalterion (in NT ‘Psalms,’ and ‘Book of Psalms,’ Luk_20:42; Luk_24:44, Act_1:20). psalmos in classical Greek signified the twanging of strings, and especially the musical sound produced by plucking the strings of a stringed instrument; as used here it means poems played to the music of (stringed) instruments. The Greek word thus corresponds closely to the Heb. mizmôr, of which it is the tr. [Note: translate or translation.] in the titles of individual Psalms (e.g. Psa_3:1). The Jewish title for the whole book was ‘Book of Praises’: this referred directly to the subject-matter of the poems, and less directly than the Greek title to their musical character. Both titles take into account the majority of the poems rather than the whole; not all the Psalms were sung to musical accompaniment, and not all of them consist of praise.
The Psalter contains, according to the division of the Hebrew text followed by EV [Note: English Version.] , 150 poems; the Greek version contains 151, but the last of these is described as ‘outside the number.’ This number does not exactly correspond with the number of different poems. On the one hand, there are one or two clear cases, and there may be others less clear, of a single Psalm having been wrongly divided into two; thus Psa_9:1-20; Psa_10:1-18 are shown by the continuance of the acrostic scheme through the latter Psalm (cf. Acrostic, and see Expositor, Sept. 1906, pp. 233–253) to have once formed, as they still do in the Greek version, a single poem. So Psa_42:1-11; Psa_43:1-5 are shown by the recurrence of the same refrain (Psa_42:5; Psa_42:11; Psa_43:5) to be one poem. But the Greek version is scarcely true to the original in making two distinct Psalms out of each of the Psalms numbered 116 and 147 respectively in the Hebrew text and EV [Note: English Version.] . Probably in a larger number of cases, owing to an opposite fortune, two poems originally distinct have been joined together under a single number. A clear instance of this kind is Psa_108:1-13, which consists of two Psalms or fragments of Psalms (viz. Psa_57:7-11; Psa_60:5-12). Among the more generally suspected instances of the same kind are Psa_19:1-14 (= vv. Psa_19:1-6 + Psa_19:7-14) 24 (= Psa_24:1-6 + Psa_24:7-10) 27 (= Psa_27:1-6 + Psa_27:7-14) and 36 (= Psa_36:1-4 + Psa_36:5-12). A very much larger number of such instances are inferred by Dr.Briggs in his Commentary (ICC [Note: CC International Critical Commentary.] ).
The Psalter does not contain quite the whole of what survives of Jewish literature of this type. A few psalms not included in the Psalter are found in other books: see, e.g., 1Sa_2:1-10, Isa_12:1-6; Isa_38:10-20, Hab_3:1-19. And we have another important, though much smaller, collection of psalms in the ‘Psalms of Solomon’ written about b.c. 63. These, with such NT psalms as Luk_1:46-55; Luk_1:68-79, are important as showing that the period of psalm composition extended beyond the close of the OT.
2. Origin and history
(1) Reception into the Canon.—The history of the Psalms and the Psalter is obscure; and many conclusions with regard to it rest, and for lack of other independent evidence must rest, on previous conclusions as to the origin and literary history of other Hebrew and Jewish literature. Conclusive external evidence for the existence of the Psalter in its present extent does not carry us very far back beyond the close of the Jewish Canon (see Canon of OT); but the mode of allusion to the Psalms in the NT renders it very unlikely that the book was still open to additions in the 1st cent. a.d.; and the fact that none of the ‘Psalms of Solomon’ (see § 1, end) gained admission, and that this collection by its title perhaps presupposes the canonical ‘Psalms of David,’ renders it probable that the Psalter was complete, and not open to further additions, some time before b.c. 63. Other evidence (cf. Hastings’ DB [Note: Dictionary of the Bible.] iv. 147), such as that derived from the substantial agreement of the Greek version with the Hebrew text, does not carry the proof for the existence of the Psalter in its present extent much further. The net result is that, if not impossible, it is unsafe, to place the completion of the Psalter much below b.c. 100.
(2) Previous history.—Behind that date lies a long history; for the Psalter represents the conclusion of a complex literary growth or development. We may note, first, two things that prove this general fact, that the Psalter is neither a simple edition of the poems of a single man or a single age, nor the first collection of its kind. (1) At the close of Psa_72:1-20 stand the words: ‘The prayers of David the son of Jesse are ended.’ This is intelligible if the remark once closed an independent collection, and was taken over with the collection by the compiler of a larger work. But apart from some such hypothesis as this it is not intelligible; for the remark is not true of the Psalter as we have it; the prayers of David are not ended, other Psalms actually entitled ‘prayers’ and described as ‘of David’ are Psa_86:1-17; Psa_142:1-7; and several subsequent Psalms assigned to David are, without being so entitled, actually prayers. (2) The same Psalm is repeated in different parts of the Psalter with slight textual or editorial variations: thus Psa_14:1-7 = Psa_53:1-6; Psa_40:13-17 = Psa_70:1-5; Psa_108:1-13 = Psa_57:7-11 + Psa_60:5-12. The Psalter, then, was composed by drawing on, and in some cases incorporating, earlier collections of Psalms.
Our next questions are: How many collections earlier than the Psalter can be traced? How far can the methods of the editor who drew on or combined these earlier collections be discerned? The first clue to the first question may be found in the titles referring to persons and their distribution; the more significant features of this distribution may be shown thus—
1. Psa_1:1-6; Psa_2:1-12 are without title.
2. Psa_3:1-8; Psa_4:1-8; Psa_5:1-12; Psa_6:1-10; Psa_7:1-17; Psa_8:1-9; Psa_9:1-20; Psa_10:1-18; Psa_11:1-7; Psa_12:1-8; Psa_13:1-6; Psa_14:1-7; Psa_15:1-5; Psa_16:1-11; Psa_17:1-15; Psa_18:1-50; Psa_19:1-14; Psa_20:1-9; Psa_21:1-13; Psa_22:1-31; Psa_23:1-6; Psa_24:1-10; Psa_25:1-22; Psa_26:1-12; Psa_27:1-14; Psa_28:1-9; Psa_29:1-11; Psa_30:1-12; Psa_31:1-24; Psa_32:1-11; Psa_33:1-22; Psa_34:1-22; Psa_35:1-28; Psa_36:1-12; Psa_37:1-40; Psa_38:1-22; Psa_39:1-13; Psa_40:1-17; Psa_41:1-13 are all entitled ‘of David,’ except Psa_10:1-18, which is a continuation of Psa_9:1-20 (see above), and Psa_33:1-22.
3. Psa_42:1-11; Psa_43:1-5; Psa_44:1-26; Psa_45:1-17; Psa_46:1-11; Psa_47:1-9; Psa_48:1-14; Psa_49:1-20 are all entitled ‘of the sons of Korah,’ except Psa_43:1-5, which is a continuation of Psa_42:1-11 (see above).
4. Psa_50:1-23 is entitled ‘of Asaph.’
5. Psa_51:1-19; Psa_52:1-9; Psa_53:1-6; Psa_54:1-7; Psa_55:1-23; Psa_56:1-13; Psa_57:1-11; Psa_58:1-11; Psa_59:1-17; Psa_60:1-12; Psa_61:1-8; Psa_62:1-12; Psa_63:1-11; Psa_64:1-10; Psa_65:1-13; Psa_66:1-20; Psa_67:1-7; Psa_68:1-35; Psa_69:1-36; Psa_70:1-5; Psa_71:1-24; Psa_72:1-20 are all entitled ‘of David,’ except Psa_66:1-20; Psa_67:1-7; Psa_71:1-24; Psa_72:1-20.
6. Psa_73:1-28; Psa_74:1-23; Psa_75:1-10; Psa_76:1-12; Psa_77:1-20; Psa_78:1-72; Psa_79:1-13; Psa_80:1-19; Psa_81:1-16; Psa_82:1-8; Psa_83:1-18 are all entitled ‘of Asaph.’
7. Of Psa_84:1-12; Psa_85:1-13; Psa_86:1-17; Psa_87:1-7; Psa_88:1-18; Psa_89:1-52, four (Psa_84:1-12; Psa_85:1-13; Psa_87:1-7; Psa_88:1-18) are entitled ‘of the sons of Korah,’ one (Psa_86:1-17) ‘of David,’ and one (Psa_69:1-36) ‘of Ethan.’
8. Psa_120:1-7; Psa_121:1-8; Psa_122:1-9; Psa_123:1-4; Psa_124:1-8; Psa_125:1-5; Psa_126:1-6; Psa_127:1-5; Psa_128:1-6; Psa_129:1-8; Psa_130:1-8; Psa_131:1-3; Psa_132:1-18; Psa_133:1-3; Psa_134:1-3 are all entitled ‘Songs (so rather than ‘A song’ RV [Note: Revised Version.] ) of Ascent.’
The remaining 46 Psalms (90–119, 135–150) are either without title, or the titles are not the same in any considerable number of consecutive Psalms (but note 108–110 and 138–145 entitled ‘of David’).
Now, if it stood by itself, the statement at the close of Psa_72:1-20 could be explained by a single process—the incorporation of a previous collection consisting of Psa_1:1-6; Psa_2:1-12; Psa_3:1-8; Psa_4:1-8; Psa_5:1-12; Psa_6:1-10; Psa_7:1-17; Psa_8:1-9; Psa_9:1-20; Psa_10:1-18; Psa_11:1-7; Psa_12:1-8; Psa_13:1-6; Psa_14:1-7; Psa_15:1-5; Psa_16:1-11; Psa_17:1-15; Psa_18:1-50; Psa_19:1-14; Psa_20:1-9; Psa_21:1-13; Psa_22:1-31; Psa_23:1-6; Psa_24:1-10; Psa_25:1-22; Psa_26:1-12; Psa_27:1-14; Psa_28:1-9; Psa_29:1-11; Psa_30:1-12; Psa_31:1-24; Psa_32:1-11; Psa_33:1-22; Psa_34:1-22; Psa_35:1-28; Psa_36:1-12; Psa_37:1-40; Psa_38:1-22; Psa_39:1-13; Psa_40:1-17; Psa_41:1-13; Psa_42:1-11; Psa_43:1-5; Psa_44:1-26; Psa_45:1-17; Psa_46:1-11; Psa_47:1-9; Psa_48:1-14; Psa_49:1-20; Psa_50:1-23; Psa_51:1-19; Psa_52:1-9; Psa_53:1-6; Psa_54:1-7; Psa_55:1-23; Psa_56:1-13; Psa_57:1-11; Psa_58:1-11; Psa_59:1-17; Psa_60:1-12; Psa_61:1-8; Psa_62:1-12; Psa_63:1-11; Psa_64:1-10; Psa_65:1-13; Psa_66:1-20; Psa_67:1-7; Psa_68:1-35; Psa_69:1-36; Psa_70:1-5; Psa_71:1-24; Psa_72:1-20 by an editor who added these to Psa_73:1-28; Psa_74:1-23; Psa_75:1-10; Psa_76:1-12; Psa_77:1-20; Psa_78:1-72; Psa_79:1-13; Psa_80:1-19; Psa_81:1-16; Psa_82:1-8; Psa_83:1-18; Psa_84:1-12; Psa_85:1-13; Psa_86:1-17; Psa_87:1-7; Psa_88:1-18; Psa_89:1-52; Psa_90:1-17; Psa_91:1-16; Psa_92:1-15; Psa_93:1-5; Psa_94:1-23; Psa_95:1-11; Psa_96:1-13; Psa_97:1-12; Psa_98:1-9; Psa_99:1-9; Psa_100:1-5; Psa_101:1-8; Psa_102:1-28; Psa_103:1-22; Psa_104:1-35; Psa_105:1-45; Psa_106:1-48; Psa_107:1-43; Psa_108:1-13; Psa_109:1-31; Psa_110:1-7; Psa_111:1-10; Psa_112:1-10; Psa_113:1-9; Psa_114:1-8; Psa_115:1-18; Psa_116:1-19; Psa_117:1-2; Psa_118:1-29; Psa_119:1-176; Psa_120:1-7; Psa_121:1-8; Psa_122:1-9; Psa_123:1-4; Psa_124:1-8; Psa_125:1-5; Psa_126:1-6; Psa_127:1-5; Psa_128:1-6; Psa_129:1-8; Psa_130:1-8; Psa_131:1-3; Psa_132:1-18; Psa_133:1-3; Psa_134:1-3; Psa_135:1-21; Psa_136:1-26; Psa_137:1-9; Psa_138:1-8; Psa_139:1-24; Psa_140:1-13; Psa_141:1-10; Psa_142:1-7; Psa_143:1-12; Psa_144:1-15; Psa_145:1-21; Psa_146:1-10; Psa_147:1-20; Psa_148:1-14; Psa_149:1-9; Psa_150:1-6 derived from other sources. But within Psa_1:1-6; Psa_2:1-12; Psa_3:1-8; Psa_4:1-8; Psa_5:1-12; Psa_6:1-10; Psa_7:1-17; Psa_8:1-9; Psa_9:1-20; Psa_10:1-18; Psa_11:1-7; Psa_12:1-8; Psa_13:1-6; Psa_14:1-7; Psa_15:1-5; Psa_16:1-11; Psa_17:1-15; Psa_18:1-50; Psa_19:1-14; Psa_20:1-9; Psa_21:1-13; Psa_22:1-31; Psa_23:1-6; Psa_24:1-10; Psa_25:1-22; Psa_26:1-12; Psa_27:1-14; Psa_28:1-9; Psa_29:1-11; Psa_30:1-12; Psa_31:1-24; Psa_32:1-11; Psa_33:1-22; Psa_34:1-22; Psa_35:1-28; Psa_36:1-12; Psa_37:1-40; Psa_38:1-22; Psa_39:1-13; Psa_40:1-17; Psa_41:1-13; Psa_42:1-11; Psa_43:1-5; Psa_44:1-26; Psa_45:1-17; Psa_46:1-11; Psa_47:1-9; Psa_48:1-14; Psa_49:1-20; Psa_50:1-23; Psa_51:1-19; Psa_52:1-9; Psa_53:1-6; Psa_54:1-7; Psa_55:1-23; Psa_56:1-13; Psa_57:1-11; Psa_58:1-11; Psa_59:1-17; Psa_60:1-12; Psa_61:1-8; Psa_62:1-12; Psa_63:1-11; Psa_64:1-10; Psa_65:1-13; Psa_66:1-20; Psa_67:1-7; Psa_68:1-35; Psa_69:1-36; Psa_70:1-5; Psa_71:1-24; Psa_72:1-20 we have two occurrences of the same Psalm (Psa_14:1-7 = Psa_53:1-6), which in itself indicates that in Psa_1:1-6; Psa_2:1-12; Psa_3:1-8; Psa_4:1-8; Psa_5:1-12; Psa_6:1-10; Psa_7:1-17; Psa_8:1-9; Psa_9:1-20; Psa_10:1-18; Psa_11:1-7; Psa_12:1-8; Psa_13:1-6; Psa_14:1-7; Psa_15:1-5; Psa_16:1-11; Psa_17:1-15; Psa_18:1-50; Psa_19:1-14; Psa_20:1-9; Psa_21:1-13; Psa_22:1-31; Psa_23:1-6; Psa_24:1-10; Psa_25:1-22; Psa_26:1-12; Psa_27:1-14; Psa_28:1-9; Psa_29:1-11; Psa_30:1-12; Psa_31:1-24; Psa_32:1-11; Psa_33:1-22; Psa_34:1-22; Psa_35:1-28; Psa_36:1-12; Psa_37:1-40; Psa_38:1-22; Psa_39:1-13; Psa_40:1-17; Psa_41:1-13; Psa_42:1-11; Psa_43:1-5; Psa_44:1-26; Psa_45:1-17; Psa_46:1-11; Psa_47:1-9; Psa_48:1-14; Psa_49:1-20; Psa_50:1-23; Psa_51:1-19; Psa_52:1-9; Psa_53:1-6; Psa_54:1-7; Psa_55:1-23; Psa_56:1-13; Psa_57:1-11; Psa_58:1-11; Psa_59:1-17; Psa_60:1-12; Psa_61:1-8; Psa_62:1-12; Psa_63:1-11; Psa_64:1-10; Psa_65:1-13; Psa_66:1-20; Psa_67:1-7; Psa_68:1-35; Psa_69:1-36; Psa_70:1-5; Psa_71:1-24; Psa_72:1-20 at least two hymn-books are combined. Again, Psa_53:1-6 differs from Psa_14:1-7 by the entire absence from it of the name ‘Jahweh’ and the use in four places of the name ‘God,’ where Psa_14:1-7 uses ‘Jahweh’ (EV [Note: English Version.] ‘the Lord’). So also in Psa_70:1-5 = Psa_40:13-17 ‘Jahweh’ is twice retained, but thrice it is replaced by ‘God.’ But the editorial activity thus implied proves on examination to have affected the entire group of Psa_42:1-11; Psa_43:1-5; Psa_44:1-26; Psa_45:1-17; Psa_46:1-11; Psa_47:1-9; Psa_48:1-14; Psa_49:1-20; Psa_50:1-23; Psa_51:1-19; Psa_52:1-9; Psa_53:1-6; Psa_54:1-7; Psa_55:1-23; Psa_56:1-13; Psa_57:1-11; Psa_58:1-11; Psa_59:1-17; Psa_60:1-12; Psa_61:1-8; Psa_62:1-12; Psa_63:1-11; Psa_64:1-10; Psa_65:1-13; Psa_66:1-20; Psa_67:1-7; Psa_68:1-35; Psa_69:1-36; Psa_70:1-5; Psa_71:1-24; Psa_72:1-20; Psa_73:1-28; Psa_74:1-23; Psa_75:1-10; Psa_76:1-12; Psa_77:1-20; Psa_78:1-72; Psa_79:1-13; Psa_80:1-19; Psa_81:1-16; Psa_82:1-8; Psa_83:1-18; for the difference in the use of the names ‘Jahweh’ and ‘God’ between Psa_1:1-6; Psa_2:1-12; Psa_3:1-8; Psa_4:1-8; Psa_5:1-12; Psa_6:1-10; Psa_7:1-17; Psa_8:1-9; Psa_9:1-20; Psa_10:1-18; Psa_11:1-7; Psa_12:1-8; Psa_13:1-6; Psa_14:1-7; Psa_15:1-5; Psa_16:1-11; Psa_17:1-15; Psa_18:1-50; Psa_19:1-14; Psa_20:1-9; Psa_21:1-13; Psa_22:1-31; Psa_23:1-6; Psa_24:1-10; Psa_25:1-22; Psa_26:1-12; Psa_27:1-14; Psa_28:1-9; Psa_29:1-11; Psa_30:1-12; Psa_31:1-24; Psa_32:1-11; Psa_33:1-22; Psa_34:1-22; Psa_35:1-28; Psa_36:1-12; Psa_37:1-40; Psa_38:1-22; Psa_39:1-13; Psa_40:1-17; Psa_41:1-13 and Psa_42:1-11; Psa_43:1-5; Psa_44:1-26; Psa_45:1-17; Psa_46:1-11; Psa_47:1-9; Psa_48:1-14; Psa_49:1-20; Psa_50:1-23; Psa_51:1-19; Psa_52:1-9; Psa_53:1-6; Psa_54:1-7; Psa_55:1-23; Psa_56:1-13; Psa_57:1-11; Psa_58:1-11; Psa_59:1-17; Psa_60:1-12; Psa_61:1-8; Psa_62:1-12; Psa_63:1-11; Psa_64:1-10; Psa_65:1-13; Psa_66:1-20; Psa_67:1-7; Psa_68:1-35; Psa_69:1-36; Psa_70:1-5; Psa_71:1-24; Psa_72:1-20; Psa_73:1-28; Psa_74:1-23; Psa_75:1-10; Psa_76:1-12; Psa_77:1-20; Psa_78:1-72; Psa_79:1-13; Psa_80:1-19; Psa_81:1-16; Psa_82:1-8; Psa_83:1-18 is remarkable: in Psa_1:1-6; Psa_2:1-12; Psa_3:1-8; Psa_4:1-8; Psa_5:1-12; Psa_6:1-10; Psa_7:1-17; Psa_8:1-9; Psa_9:1-20; Psa_10:1-18; Psa_11:1-7; Psa_12:1-8; Psa_13:1-6; Psa_14:1-7; Psa_15:1-5; Psa_16:1-11; Psa_17:1-15; Psa_18:1-50; Psa_19:1-14; Psa_20:1-9; Psa_21:1-13; Psa_22:1-31; Psa_23:1-6; Psa_24:1-10; Psa_25:1-22; Psa_26:1-12; Psa_27:1-14; Psa_28:1-9; Psa_29:1-11; Psa_30:1-12; Psa_31:1-24; Psa_32:1-11; Psa_33:1-22; Psa_34:1-22; Psa_35:1-28; Psa_36:1-12; Psa_37:1-40; Psa_38:1-22; Psa_39:1-13; Psa_40:1-17; Psa_41:1-13 ‘Jahweh’ occurs 272 times, ‘God’ (absolutely) 15 times; in Psa_42:1-11; Psa_43:1-5; Psa_44:1-26; Psa_45:1-17; Psa_46:1-11; Psa_47:1-9; Psa_48:1-14; Psa_49:1-20; Psa_50:1-23; Psa_51:1-19; Psa_52:1-9; Psa_53:1-6; Psa_54:1-7; Psa_55:1-23; Psa_56:1-13; Psa_57:1-11; Psa_58:1-11; Psa_59:1-17; Psa_60:1-12; Psa_61:1-8; Psa_62:1-12; Psa_63:1-11; Psa_64:1-10; Psa_65:1-13; Psa_66:1-20; Psa_67:1-7; Psa_68:1-35; Psa_69:1-36; Psa_70:1-5; Psa_71:1-24; Psa_72:1-20; Psa_73:1-28; Psa_74:1-23; Psa_75:1-10; Psa_76:1-12; Psa_77:1-20; Psa_78:1-72; Psa_79:1-13; Psa_80:1-19; Psa_81:1-16; Psa_82:1-8; Psa_83:1-18 ‘Jahweh’ 43 times, but ‘God’ 200 times (see Driver, LOT [Note: OT Introd. to the Literature of the Old Testament.] 6 371). Now this Elohistic Psalter, as Psa_42:1-11; Psa_43:1-5; Psa_44:1-26; Psa_45:1-17; Psa_46:1-11; Psa_47:1-9; Psa_48:1-14; Psa_49:1-20; Psa_50:1-23; Psa_51:1-19; Psa_52:1-9; Psa_53:1-6; Psa_54:1-7; Psa_55:1-23; Psa_56:1-13; Psa_57:1-11; Psa_58:1-11; Psa_59:1-17; Psa_60:1-12; Psa_61:1-8; Psa_62:1-12; Psa_63:1-11; Psa_64:1-10; Psa_65:1-13; Psa_66:1-20; Psa_67:1-7; Psa_68:1-35; Psa_69:1-36; Psa_70:1-5; Psa_71:1-24; Psa_72:1-20; Psa_73:1-28; Psa_74:1-23; Psa_75:1-10; Psa_76:1-12; Psa_77:1-20; Psa_78:1-72; Psa_79:1-13; Psa_80:1-19; Psa_81:1-16; Psa_82:1-8; Psa_83:1-18 are termed on account of the marked preference which is shown in them for the term Elohim = ‘God,’ is one of the earlier collections embodied in our Psalter; but it is itself in turn derived from different sources; for it includes the group of David’s Psalms which closes with the statement that the Prayers of David are ended—a statement which, though not true of the whole Psalter, is true of this earlier Psalter, for between Psa_73:1-28; Psa_74:1-23; Psa_75:1-10; Psa_76:1-12; Psa_77:1-20; Psa_78:1-72; Psa_79:1-13; Psa_80:1-19; Psa_81:1-16; Psa_82:1-8; Psa_83:1-18 no prayer of David occurs. It also includes Psalms ‘of the sons of Korah’ and ‘of Asaph.’ Very possibly this Elohistic Psalter has not reached us in its original condition; for (1) the untitled Psalms may have been subsequently inserted; and (2) the Psalms entitled ‘of Asaph’ may have once stood all together: at present Psa_50:1-23 stands isolated from the rest (Psa_73:1-28; Psa_74:1-23; Psa_75:1-10; Psa_76:1-12; Psa_77:1-20; Psa_78:1-72; Psa_79:1-13; Psa_80:1-19; Psa_81:1-16; Psa_82:1-8; Psa_83:1-18).
In addition to the occurrences of Psalms in two recensions and the occurrence of similar titles or groups, another feature points to earlier independent books of Psalms: this is the occurrence of a doxology or suitable concluding formula at certain points in the Psalter, viz. Psa_41:13 at the end of the first group of Psalms entitled ‘of David’; Psa_72:18-19 immediately before the statement that the Prayers of David are ended; and Psa_89:52. See also Psa_106:48 and Psa_150:1-6, which last Psalm in its entirety may be taken as an enlarged doxology at the close of the completed Psalter. The doxologies at the end of Psa_41:1-13; Psa_72:1-20 occur at points which we have already found reason for regarding as the close of collections; that at Psa_89:52, however, occurs not at the close of the Elohistic Psalms, but six Psalms later. Now five of these six Psalms are drawn from the same sources as supplied the Elohistic editor, viz. from the ‘prayers of David’ (Psa_86:1-17) and the book ‘of the sons of Korah.’ In Psa_42:1-11; Psa_43:1-5; Psa_44:1-26; Psa_45:1-17; Psa_46:1-11; Psa_47:1-9; Psa_48:1-14; Psa_49:1-20; Psa_50:1-23; Psa_51:1-19; Psa_52:1-9; Psa_53:1-6; Psa_54:1-7; Psa_55:1-23; Psa_56:1-13; Psa_57:1-11; Psa_58:1-11; Psa_59:1-17; Psa_60:1-12; Psa_61:1-8; Psa_62:1-12; Psa_63:1-11; Psa_64:1-10; Psa_65:1-13; Psa_66:1-20; Psa_67:1-7; Psa_68:1-35; Psa_69:1-36; Psa_70:1-5; Psa_71:1-24; Psa_72:1-20; Psa_73:1-28; Psa_74:1-23; Psa_75:1-10; Psa_76:1-12; Psa_77:1-20; Psa_78:1-72; Psa_79:1-13; Psa_80:1-19; Psa_81:1-16; Psa_82:1-8; Psa_83:1-18; Psa_84:1-12; Psa_85:1-13; Psa_86:1-17; Psa_87:1-7; Psa_88:1-18; Psa_89:1-52 we not improbably have the original Elohistic Psalter (Psa_42:1-11; Psa_43:1-5; Psa_44:1-26; Psa_45:1-17; Psa_46:1-11; Psa_47:1-9; Psa_48:1-14; Psa_49:1-20; Psa_50:1-23; Psa_51:1-19; Psa_52:1-9; Psa_53:1-6; Psa_54:1-7; Psa_55:1-23; Psa_56:1-13; Psa_57:1-11; Psa_58:1-11; Psa_59:1-17; Psa_60:1-12; Psa_61:1-8; Psa_62:1-12; Psa_63:1-11; Psa_64:1-10; Psa_65:1-13; Psa_66:1-20; Psa_67:1-7; Psa_68:1-35; Psa_69:1-36; Psa_70:1-5; Psa_71:1-24; Psa_72:1-20; Psa_73:1-28; Psa_74:1-23; Psa_75:1-10; Psa_76:1-12; Psa_77:1-20; Psa_78:1-72; Psa_79:1-13; Psa_80:1-19; Psa_81:1-16; Psa_82:1-8; Psa_83:1-18), enlarged by the addition of an appendix (Psa_84:1-12; Psa_85:1-13; Psa_86:1-17; Psa_87:1-7; Psa_88:1-18; Psa_89:1-52), in which the name ‘Jahweh’ was left unchanged, and consequently the form ‘Elohim’ ceases to predominate.
From the evidence thus far considered or suggested (it cannot here be given in greater detail), we may infer some such stages as these in the history of the Psalms before the completion of the Psalter:—
1. Compilation of a book entitled ‘of David’ and including Psa_3:1-8; Psa_4:1-8; Psa_5:1-12; Psa_6:1-10; Psa_7:1-17; Psa_8:1-9; Psa_9:1-20; Psa_10:1-18; Psa_11:1-7; Psa_12:1-8; Psa_13:1-6; Psa_14:1-7; Psa_15:1-5; Psa_16:1-11; Psa_17:1-15; Psa_18:1-50; Psa_19:1-14; Psa_20:1-9; Psa_21:1-13; Psa_22:1-31; Psa_23:1-6; Psa_24:1-10; Psa_25:1-22; Psa_26:1-12; Psa_27:1-14; Psa_28:1-9; Psa_29:1-11; Psa_30:1-12; Psa_31:1-24; Psa_32:1-11; Psa_33:1-22; Psa_34:1-22; Psa_35:1-28; Psa_36:1-12; Psa_37:1-40; Psa_38:1-22; Psa_39:1-13; Psa_40:1-17; Psa_41:1-13 (except the untitled Psa_33:1-22).
2. Compilation of a second hymn-book entitled ‘of David’ (Psa_51:1-19; Psa_52:1-9; Psa_53:1-6; Psa_54:1-7; Psa_55:1-23; Psa_56:1-13; Psa_57:1-11; Psa_58:1-11; Psa_59:1-17; Psa_60:1-12; Psa_61:1-8; Psa_62:1-12; Psa_63:1-11; Psa_64:1-10; Psa_65:1-13; Psa_66:1-20; Psa_67:1-7; Psa_68:1-35; Psa_69:1-36; Psa_70:1-5; Psa_71:1-24; Psa_72:1-20, with exceptions).
3. Compilation of a book entitled ‘of Asaph’ (Asaph being the name of a guild of singers, Ezr_2:11).
4. Compilation of a book entitled ‘of the sons of Korah’ (also probably a guild of singers; cf. 2Ch_20:19).
5. Compilation of ‘the Elohistic Psalter’ out of Psalms derived from 2, 3, 4 by an editor who generally substituted ‘Elohim’ (‘God’) for ‘Jahweh’ (EV [Note: English Version.] ‘the Lord’).
6. Enlargement of 5 by the addition of Psa_84:1-12; Psa_85:1-13; Psa_86:1-17; Psa_87:1-7; Psa_88:1-18; Psa_89:1-52.
7. Compilation of a book entitled ‘Songs of the Ascents.’
Can we detect the existence of other earlier Psalters? So far we have taken account mainly of titles of one type only and of titles which occur in groups. Dr. Briggs carries the argument from titles to the existence of collections of Psalms further. He infers that there was a collection of Michtams or chosen pieces, whence Psa_16:1-11; Psa_56:1-13; Psa_57:1-11; Psa_58:1-11; Psa_59:1-17; Psa_60:1-12 and Isa_38:9-20 were drawn; another collection of Maschils or meditations, whence Psa_32:1-11; Psa_42:1-11; Psa_43:1-5; Psa_44:1-26; Psa_45:1-17; Psa_52:1-9; Psa_53:1-6; Psa_54:1-7; Psa_55:1-23; Psa_74:1-23; Psa_78:1-72; Psa_88:1-18; Psa_89:1-52; Psa_142:1-7 were derived; another collection of Psalms proper, of poems set to music, whence the 57 Psalms described in the titles as Mizmor (EV [Note: English Version.] ‘psalm’) were derived; and yet another collection which bore the name of the musical director or choir master (EV [Note: English Version.] ‘the chief musician’), whence the 55 Psalms so entitled were derived. If this be the case, then the composite titles enable us to see that many Psalms stood successively in two or three collections before they obtained their place in the completed Psalter; e.g. Psa_19:1-14—entitled ‘of (or belonging to) the chief musician, a Psalm, of (or belonging to) David’—had previously been included in three distinct collections; and so also Psa_44:1-26—entitled ‘of the chief musician, of the sons of Korah, Maschil.’ Perhaps the strongest case for these further collections is that of the chief musician’s Psalter; in any case, the English reader must be warned that the preposition prefixed to the ‘chief musician’ is the same as that prefixed to ‘David’ or ‘Asaph’ or ‘the sons of Korah,’ though in the first case RV [Note: Revised Version.] renders ‘for’ and in the latter cases ‘of.’ Consequently, since in many cases it is impossible, owing to intervening words (e.g. in Psa_12:1-8; Psa_45:1-17), to interpret such a combination as ‘of the chief musician, of David,’ ‘of the chief musician, of the sons of Korah’ of joint authorship, we must see in them either conflicting ascriptions of authorship placed side by side, or, far more probably, as just suggested, the titles of collections of Psalms or hymn-books to which they had previously belonged. It is then highly probable that in the first instance such titles as ‘of David,’ ‘of Asaph,’ ‘of the sons of Korah,’ were neither intended nor understood to name the author of the Psalm in question. But if this was so, we can also see that before the final stage in the growth of the Psalter they were misunderstood; for the title ‘of David’ clearly implied authorship to the author(s) of the longer titles in Psa_7:1-17; Psa_8:1-9 : it is scarcely less clear that the title implied authorship to the authors of other titles that suggest an historical setting (see, e.g., Psa_3:1-8; Psa_57:1-11).
Titles of the Psalms.—Inasmuch as the terms occurring in the titles to the Psalms are not explained elsewhere in this Dictionary, it will be convenient to give here brief notes on those which have not already been discussed. It may be said in general that great obscurity enshrouds the subject, and that, in spite of the many ingenious speculations to which the terms in question have given rise, it is hazardous to base, on any particular theories of interpretation, far reaching conclusions. With few exceptions the titles of the latter part of the Psalter (Psa_90:1-17; Psa_91:1-16; Psa_92:1-15; Psa_93:1-5; Psa_94:1-23; Psa_95:1-11; Psa_96:1-13; Psa_97:1-12; Psa_98:1-9; Psa_99:1-9; Psa_100:1-5; Psa_101:1-8; Psa_102:1-28; Psa_103:1-22; Psa_104:1-35; Psa_105:1-45; Psa_106:1-48; Psa_107:1-43; Psa_108:1-13; Psa_109:1-31; Psa_110:1-7; Psa_111:1-10; Psa_112:1-10; Psa_113:1-9; Psa_114:1-8; Psa_115:1-18; Psa_116:1-19; Psa_117:1-2; Psa_118:1-29; Psa_119:1-176; Psa_120:1-7; Psa_121:1-8; Psa_122:1-9; Psa_123:1-4; Psa_124:1-8; Psa_125:1-5; Psa_126:1-6; Psa_127:1-5; Psa_128:1-6; Psa_129:1-8; Psa_130:1-8; Psa_131:1-3; Psa_132:1-18; Psa_133:1-3; Psa_134:1-3; Psa_135:1-21; Psa_136:1-26; Psa_137:1-9; Psa_138:1-8; Psa_139:1-24; Psa_140:1-13; Psa_141:1-10; Psa_142:1-7; Psa_143:1-12; Psa_144:1-15; Psa_145:1-21; Psa_146:1-10; Psa_147:1-20; Psa_148:1-14; Psa_149:1-9; Psa_150:1-6) are free from these terms.
Apparently we have in the titles not only notes indicating the source whence the Psalm was derived (see above), but also in some cases notes defining the character of the Psalm (see below, Nos. 12 and 13 and [?) No. 18), or some circumstances of its use. Thus Psa_92:1-15 was to be used on the Sabbath, Psa_30:1-12 at the Feast of the Dedication (1Ma_4:56, Joh_10:22), celebrated from the time of the Maccabees onward; and Pa 100 on the occasion of offering thank-offering; so also ‘to bring to remembrance’ (EV [Note: English Version.] ) in Psa_38:1-22; Psa_70:1-5 may rather mean ‘at the time of making the offering called azkarah’ (RV [Note: Revised Version.] ‘memorial,’ e.g. Num_5:26); see also No. 5 (below). This type of note is more frequent in the LXX [Note: Septuagint.] , which assigns Psa_24:1-10 for the use of the first day of the week, Pa 48 for the second, Pa 94 for the third, Psa_93:1-5 for the day before the Sabbath. Other titles, it is supposed, name, by the opening words of songs sung to it or otherwise, the tune to which the Psalm was to be sung (see Aijeleth hash-shahar, Al-tashheth, Jonath-elem-rehokim, Shoshannim; see below), or the instruments which were to accompany the singing of the Psalm (? Nehiloth, Neginoth).
For ease of reference we give the terms in alphabetic order.
1. Aijeleth hash-shahar (Psa_22:1-31) is a transliteration of Heb. words which mean ‘the hind of the morning’; the Heb. consonants might equally well mean ‘the help of the morning.’ These words are preceded by the Heb. preposition ‘al, which, among many others, has the meaning ‘in accordance with,’ and here and in other similar titles not improbably means ‘set to’ (AV [Note: Authorized Version.] ). The whole note, then, may mean that the Psalm was to be sung to the tune to which the song beginning ‘the hind (or ‘the help’) of the morning’ had been accustomed to be sung. The renderings ‘upon Aijeleth Shahar’ (AV [Note: Authorized Version.] ) and ‘concerning Aijeleth hash-shahar’ are also legitimate, but less probable. With this title cf. below Nos. 3, 7, 9, 10, 14, 19 (not all equally probable instances).
2. Alamoth (Psa_46:1-11). This term and Sheminith (Psa_6:1-10; Psa_12:1-8) must be treated together. They are preceded by the same preposition ‘al discussed under No. 1, and accordingly RV [Note: Revised Version.] renders ‘set to the Sheminith,’ etc. But it is hardly likely, in view of 1Ch_15:19-21, that these terms are names of tunes, though they obviously have some reference to the music. The usual meaning of sheminith in Heb. is ‘eighth,’ of ‘alamoth’ ‘young women’; so that the titles run ‘upon’ or ‘according to’ or ‘set to the eighth’ or ‘the maidens.’ ‘The maidens,’ it is conjectured, means ‘the voices of maidens,’ and that, it is further conjectured, stands for ‘the falsetto voice of males’; so that the whole phrase ‘set to the maidens’ would mean ‘to be sung with soprano voices.’ Thence, it is inferred, ‘set to the eighth’ means ‘sung with the bass voice.’ All this, though it has found considerable acceptance and has sometimes been stated with little or no qualification, possesses no more than the value of an unverified and perhaps unverifiable guess.
3. Al-tashheth (Psa_57:1-11; Psa_58:1-11; Psa_59:1-17; Psa_75:1-10). The words mean ‘destroy not,’ and may be the beginning of a vintage song cited in Isa_65:8 ‘Destroy it not, for a blessing is in it.’ Then the note presumably directs that the Psalms shall be sung to the tune of this song (cf. No. 1). But the omission of the preposition ‘al used in similar cases is suspicious.
4. The Chief Musician. See preced. column.
5. ‘Ascents’ (RV [Note: Revised Version.] ; ‘degrees’ AV [Note: Authorized Version.] ), a song of (Psa_120:1-7; Psa_121:1-8; Psa_122:1-9; Psa_123:1-4; Psa_124:1-8; Psa_125:1-5; Psa_126:1-6; Psa_127:1-5; Psa_128:1-6; Psa_129:1-8; Psa_130:1-8; Psa_131:1-3; Psa_132:1-18; Psa_133:1-3; Psa_134:1-3). The Heb. may also be the plural of a compound expression, and mean ‘Songs of Ascent.’ In the latter case the title of the whole collection has been prefixed to each Psalm (see above). ‘Songs of Ascent’ might mean ‘Songs of the Ascent’ (cf. Ezr_7:9), from Babylon, but more probably ‘Songs of the Ascent’ to Jerusalem on the occasion of the great yearly festivals. On the supposition that the meaning is ‘A song of Ascents’ (pl.), the phrase has been explained with reference to the 15 ascents’ or ‘steps’ (such is the meaning of the Heb. word in Exo_20:23, 1Ki_10:19 f.), that led from the Women’s Court to that of the men in the Temple area; it has been inferred that one of each of these 15 Psalms was sung on each of the 15 steps. Other ingenious but improbable suggestions have been offered (cf., most lately, J. W. Thirtle, Old Testament Problems).
6. Dedication of the House, i.e. the Temple (Psa_30:1-12). See above and art. Dedication [Feast of the].
7. Gittith (Psa_8:1-9; Psa_81:1-16; Psa_84:1-12). The word is the fem. of the adj. derived from Gath. In the three titles it is preceded by the prep. ‘al (see under No. 1), and the phrase has been supposed to mean that the Psalm was to be sung to the accompaniment of the Gittite instrument (cf. Nos. 15 and? 16), whatever that may have been, or to the Gittite tune (cf. No. 1). If the word was originally pronounced ‘Gittoth’ (pl. of gath, ‘a wine-press’), the note may direct that the Psalms were to be sung to some vintage melody (cf. No. 3).
8. Higgaion.—The word thus transliterated in Psa_9:16 (RV [Note: Revised Version.] ) is translated in Psa_92:3 ‘a solemn sound’ (RV [Note: Revised Version.] ), ‘murmuring sound’ (Driver), and in Psa_19:14. ‘meditation.’ In Psa_9:16 it seems to be a musical note.
9. Jeduthun.—On the analogy of ‘of David,’ etc. (see above), the title in Psa_39:1-13 should run ‘of the sons of Korah, of Jeduthun.’ In Psa_62:1-12; Psa_77:1-20 the preposition prefixed to the term is ‘al (cf. No. 1), and by analogy Jeduthun might be the name of a tune or an instrument. But this is very uncertain; see art. Jeduthun.
10. Jonath-elem-rehokim (Psa_56:1-13). The Heb. consonants are most naturally translated ‘the dove of the distant terebinths’; less probably, but as the tradition embodied in the vocalized Heb. text suggests, ‘the dove of the silence of them that are distant.’ The note is to be explained as No. 1.
11. Mahalath (Psa_53:1-6), Mahalath Leanooth (Psa_88:1-18). The words are very ambiguous and obscure, but the fact that in both Psalms the prep. ‘al precedes, relates these notes to the group of which No. 1 is typical.
12. Maschil (Psa_32:1-11; Psa_42:1-11; Psa_43:1-5; Psa_44:1-26; Psa_45:1-17; Psa_52:1-9; Psa_53:1-6; Psa_54:1-7; Psa_55:1-23; Psa_74:1-23; Psa_75:1-10; Psa_76:1-12; Psa_77:1-20; Psa_78:1-72; Psa_88:1-18; Psa_89:1-52; Psa_142:1-7). The term describes the character of the poem, but whether its precise meaning is ‘a meditation’ (Briggs) or ‘a cunning Psalm’ (Kirkpatrick), or something else, cannot be determined with certainty. See also p. 771a.
13. Michtam (Psa_16:1-11; Psa_56:1-13; Psa_57:1-11; Psa_58:1-11; Psa_59:1-17; Psa_60:1-12, also perhaps in the original text of Isa_38:9) is a term like the last, but of still more uncertain meaning. The Rabbinical interpretation—a golden (poem)—though adopted by Briggs, is quite unconvincing.
14. Muth-labben (Psa_9:1-20). The Heb. consonants may mean ‘Death whitens,’ and this may have been the commencement of a song which gave a name to a tune; cf. No. 1. But it is not unreasonable to suspect the text, as many have done.
15. Neginoth (AV [Note: Authorized Version.] in Psa_4:1-8; Psa_6:1-10; Psa_54:1-7; Psa_55:1-23; Psa_67:1-7; Psa_76:1-12) and Neginah (Psa_61:1-8). The words thus, in excess of caution, transliterated by AV [Note: Authorized Version.] , are correctly translated by RV [Note: Revised Version.] ‘stringed instruments’ (Psa_61:1-8 ‘song’), and so even by AV [Note: Authorized Version.] in Hab_3:19.
16. Nehiloth (Psa_5:1-12), often supposed to mean ‘wind instruments’ (cf. No. 15). But this is quite doubtful. Uncertain, too, is the view that the word indicates a tune; the preposition (’el) that precedes is not the same as that which generally introduces what appear to be names of tunes elsewhere (cf. No. 1); but cf. No. 19.
17. Sheminith. See No. 2.
18. Shiggaion (Psa_7:1-17). The pl. of this word (Shigionoth) occurs in Hab_3:1, possibly by error for Neginoth (cf. No. 15), which perhaps stood in the text from which the Greek version was made. The root from which the word is derived means ‘to go astray’ or ‘to reel’ (as, e.g., from drunkenness). Hence, since Ewald, many have conjectured that Shiggaion means ‘a wild, passionate song, with rapid changes of rhythm’ (Oxf. Lex.). The meaning really remains entirely uncertain.
19. Shoshannim (Psa_45:1-17; Psa_69:1-36), Shushan-eduth (Psa_60:1-12), and Shoshannim-eduth (Psa_80:1-19) appear to be different ways of citing the same song to the tune of which these Psalms were to be sung. The preposition used before these words is ‘al (cf. No. 1), except in Psa_80:1-19, where it is ’el, which in some cases is used interchangeably with ‘al. It is curious that Psalms so different as 45 and 69 should be set to the same tune. Psa_80:1-19 cites the first two words of the poem, ‘(Like) lilies (or rather anemones) is the Testimony (or Law)’; Psa_45:1-17; Psa_69:1-36 the first word only; and Psa_60:1-12 apparently was variant, ‘(Like) a lily’ (singular for plural), etc.
3. Dates of the various collections.—Is it possible to determine the dates at which any of these collections of Psalms were made? Obviously they are earlier than the completion of the Psalter, i.e. than about b.c. 100 (see above); obviously also the collections were later than the latest Psalm which they originally contained. One or more Psalms in all the collections show more or less generally admitted signs of being post-exilic. The various collections therefore which we have in the Psalter were compiled between the 6th and the 2nd centuries b.c. By arguments which cannot here be reproduced, Robertson Smith (OTJC [Note: TJC The Old Test. in the Jewish Church.] ch. vii.) reached the following conclusions in detail. The first Davidic collection (Psa_3:1-8; Psa_4:1-8; Psa_5:1-12; Psa_6:1-10; Psa_7:1-17; Psa_8:1-9; Psa_9:1-20; Psa_10:1-18; Psa_11:1-7; Psa_12:1-8; Psa_13:1-6; Psa_14:1-7; Psa_15:1-5; Psa_16:1-11; Psa_17:1-15; Psa_18:1-50; Psa_19:1-14; Psa_20:1-9; Psa_21:1-13; Psa_22:1-31; Psa_23:1-6; Psa_24:1-10; Psa_25:1-22; Psa_26:1-12; Psa_27:1-14; Psa_28:1-9; Psa_29:1-11; Psa_30:1-12; Psa_31:1-24; Psa_32:1-11; Psa_33:1-22; Psa_34:1-22; Psa_35:1-28; Psa_36:1-12; Psa_37:1-40; Psa_38:1-22; Psa_39:1-13; Psa_40:1-17; Psa_41:1-13) was compiled about the time of Ezra and Nehemiah; the second Davidic collection (Psa_57:1-11; Psa_58:1-11; Psa_59:1-17; Psa_60:1-12; Psa_61:1-8; Psa_62:1-12; Psa_63:1-11; Psa_64:1-10; Psa_65:1-13; Psa_66:1-20; Psa_67:1-7; Psa_68:1-35; Psa_69:1-36; Psa_70:1-5; Psa_71:1-24; Psa_72:1-20) in the 4th cent.; the Asaphite (Psa_50:1-23; Psa_73:1-28; Psa_74:1-23; Psa_75:1-10; Psa_76:1-12; Psa_77:1-20; Psa_78:1-72; Psa_79:1-13; Psa_80:1-19; Psa_81:1-16; Psa_82:1-8; Psa_83:1-18) and Korahite (Psa_42:1-11; Psa_43:1-5; Psa_44:1-26; Psa_45:1-17; Psa_46:1-11; Psa_47:1-9; Psa_48:1-14; Psa_49:1-20) collections between b.c. 430 and 330. Dr. Briggs places the Korahitic and Asaphite collections somewhat later—after b.c. 332; the Elohistic Psalter (Psa_42:1-11; Psa_43:1-5; Psa_44:1-26; Psa_45:1-17; Psa_46:1-11; Psa_47:1-9; Psa_48:1-14; Psa_49:1-20; Psa_50:1-23; Psa_51:1-19; Psa_52:1-9; Psa_53:1-6; Psa_54:1-7; Psa_55:1-23; Psa_56:1-13; Psa_57:1-11; Psa_58:1-11; Psa_59:1-17; Psa_60:1-12; Psa_61:1-8; Psa_62:1-12; Psa_63:1-11; Psa_64:1-10; Psa_65:1-13; Psa_66:1-20; Psa_67:1-7; Psa_68:1-35; Psa_69:1-36; Psa_70:1-5; Psa_71:1-24; Psa_72:1-20; Psa_73:1-28; Psa_74:1-23; Psa_75:1-10; Psa_76:1-12; Psa_77:1-20; Psa_78:1-72; Psa_79:1-13; Psa_80:1-19; Psa_81:1-16; Psa_82:1-8; Psa_83:1-18) and the chief musician’s collection in the 3rd cent. b.c. But whatever the value of these detailed conclusions, which are not all very secure, one general fact of much importance already stands out: the period between the Exile and the 1st cent. b.c. was marked by much activity in the collection and editing of Psalms; and this, apart from the dates of individual Psalms, is significant for the part played by the Psalms in the religious life of the post-exilic community.
4. Dates of individual Psalms.—From the collections we pass to the difficult and much discussed question of the dates of the individual Psalms. All that will be possible here is to point out certain general lines of evidence, with one or two illustrations in detail. If the detailed conclusions with reference to the collections are sound, a minimum date is fixed for many Psalms: e.g. Psa_3:1-8; Psa_4:1-8; Psa_5:1-12; Psa_6:1-10; Psa_7:1-17; Psa_8:1-9; Psa_9:1-20; Psa_10:1-18; Psa_11:1-7; Psa_12:1-8; Psa_13:1-6; Psa_14:1-7; Psa_15:1-5; Psa_16:1-11; Psa_17:1-15; Psa_18:1-50; Psa_19:1-14; Psa_20:1-9; Psa_21:1-13; Psa_22:1-31; Psa_23:1-6; Psa_24:1-10; Psa_25:1-22; Psa_26:1-12; Psa_27:1-14; Psa_28:1-9; Psa_29:1-11; Psa_30:1-12; Psa_31:1-24; Psa_32:1-11; Psa_33:1-22; Psa_34:1-22; Psa_35:1-28; Psa_36:1-12; Psa_37:1-40; Psa_38:1-22; Psa_39:1-13; Psa_40:1-17; Psa_41:1-13 (except the untitled Psa_33:1-22) are not later than about the time of Ezra and Nehemiah; Psa_42:1-11; Psa_43:1-5; Psa_44:1-26; Psa_45:1-17; Psa_46:1-11; Psa_47:1-9; Psa_48:1-14; Psa_49:1-20; Psa_50:1-23; Psa_73:1-28; Psa_83:1-18 not later (on Robertson Smith’s theory) than b.c. 330, and so on. The collections are indeed post-exilic, but in itself that need not prevent even the whole of the Psalms being pre-exilic: the collections might be post-exilic hymn-books composed entirely of ancient hymns. As a matter of fact, not all the Psalms are pre-exilic; many of the individual Psalms are somewhat clearly of post-exilic origin; indeed, there is a fairly general consensus of opinion that the majority, a considerable body of opinion that the great majority, of the Psalms are post-exilic. Signs of exilic or post-exilic origin are: (1) Allusions to the Exile or the desolation of Zion, as a present or past fact, as the case may be: see e.g. Psa_51:18 f., Psa_89:44-51, Psa_102:13; Psa_102:16, Psa_106:47, Psa_107:3 ff., Psa_126:1, Psa_137:1, Psa_147:2. The profanation of the Temple by the heathen alluded to in Psa_74:1-23; Psa_75:1-10; Psa_76:1-12; Psa_77:1-20; Psa_78:1-72; Psa_79:1-13 may refer rather to the events of Maccabæan times (b.c. 165) than to 586. (2) Other allusions to social and political conditions, such as the frequent division of the Jews into religious parties, with the use of terms like ‘the poor,’ ‘the pious’ (Chasîdîm) as party names; but this and other such allusions are differently interpreted and weighed by different scholars. (3) Language such as that of, e.g., Psa_116:1-19; Psa_139:1-24; style and language in many other Psalms is less conclusive though (granted certain previous conclusions) not without weight. (4) Dependence upon exilic and post-exilic writings: e.g. Psa_93:1-5; Psa_96:1-13; Psa_97:1-12; Psa_98:1-9; Psa_99:1-9; Psa_100:1-5 almost certainly, and Psa_57:1-11 most probably, imply familiarity on the part of the writer with much of Isa_40:1-31; Isa_41:1-29; Isa_42:1-25; Isa_43:1-28; Isa_44:1-28; Isa_45:1-25; Isa_46:1-13; Isa_47:1-15; Isa_48:1-22; Isa_49:1-26; Isa_50:1-11; Isa_51:1-23; Isa_52:1-15; Isa_53:1-12; Isa_54:1-17; Isa_55:1-13; Isa_56:1-12; Isa_57:1-21; Isa_58:1-14; Isa_59:1-21; Isa_60:1-22; Isa_61:1-11; Isa_62:1-12; Isa_63:1-19; Isa_64:1-12; Isa_65:1-25; Isa_66:1-24. (5) The presence of certain religious ideas which were not developed till late in the history of Israel’s religion. There is much variety of judgment as to the number of Psalms and the particular Psalms shown by these criteria to be late, but, as previously stated, it is admittedly large. Strictly speaking, indeed, these criteria determine the date of those sections only to which they apply, not necessarily that of the entire Psalm; and if it can be shown that the obviously post-exilic sections in any particular Psalm are interpolations, the rest of the Psalm may be (but, of course, by no means necessarily is) pre-exilic. Dr. Briggs in his Commentary has carried the hypothesis of interpolation far, using as his test certain theories of metre and strophe.
What, then, are the positive criteria for pre-exilic Psalms or pre-exilic elements in Psalms which may show in parts obvious signs of post-exilic origin? Failing such criteria, the Psalms cannot be shown to be considerably earlier than the post-exilic collections in which they have come down to us. The criterion of pre-exilic date most relied on is an allusion to the king; from the fall of Judah in b.c. 586 down to b.c. 105, when Aristobulus i. assumed the title of king, there was no native king of Judah. Now, since in, e.g., Psa_20:1-9; Psa_21:1-13 the allusion to the king cannot satisfactorily be explained of a foreign monarch, and these Psalms cannot be thrown as late as b.c. 105, it appears to follow that they originated before 586. Other Psalms alluding to a king who cannot well be a foreigner, or have lived so late as b.c. 105, are Psa_2:1-12; Psa_18:1-50; Psa_28:1-9; Psa_45:1-17; Psa_61:1-8; Psa_63:1-11; Psa_72:1-20. Yet there still remains a question of interpretation: is the king in these Psalms an actual contemporary individual, or the Messianic king whether regarded as an individual or as the royal people of Israel (cf. JQR [Note: QR Jewish Quarterly Review.] , 1895, p. 658 ff.)? If the latter interpretation is correct (as, e.g., in the case of Psa_2:1-12 at least, it probably is), the value of the allusion as a criterion of pre-exilic date vanishes; for a reference to a king who is not a person of history but an ideal conception is not less probable in a post-exilic than in a pre-exilic poem. Further, a purely proverbial allusion to the king, such as occurs in Psa_33:16, furnishes no valid criterion for pre-exilic origin, nor does an allusion to kings in the plural (e.g. Psa_119:46; Psa_148:11).
If, as the previous remarks should have suggested, it is in most cases only possible to determine whether a Psalm is pre-exilic or post-exilic on evidence somewhat widely applicable, and in many cases impossible to determine even this quite decisively, it should be clear that the attempt to fix the authorship or dates of Psalms very precisely must generally prove fruitless. Are there any that can be referred, even with great probability, to a particular occasion as that of their origin, or to a particular writer? The mere fact that a Psalm may appear to us suitable to a particular occasion, as, e.g., Psa_46:1-11 to the deliverance from Sennacherib in 701, does not necessarily prove that it even refers to it, still less that it was written at the time; the question arises, is the occasion in question the only one to which the terms of the Psalm are applicable, or are those terms sufficiently specific to render it improbable that the Psalm might have fitted other occasions unknown to us, or but partially known? Thus Psa_44:1-26; Psa_74:1-23; Psa_79:1-13; Psa_118:1-29 presuppose conditions which resemble what is known of the period of the Maccabæan revolt (cf. 1 Maccabees), more closely than what is known of any other period, and on that ground they have been assigned by many to the Maccabæan period the question is. Are the descriptions so specific that they might not also correspond to the conditions of the middle of the 4th cent. b.c. (to which other scholars have referred Psa_44:1-26; Psa_74:1-23; Psa_79:1-13) if we were equally well informed with regard to these?
5. The question of Davidic Psalms.—The question of authorship retains an interest only with reference to David. The theory that David was the author of Psalms can be traced back as far as the time (not to be dated very precisely, but centuries at least after David’s time) when the historical notes were added in certain Psalms to the title ‘of David’ (see above). Whether it goes back further (except in the case of Psa_18:1-50 = 2Sa_22:1-51; see below) to the time of the origin of the collection entitled ‘of David’ is less clear, for it is by no means certain that the similar title ‘of the chief musician’ referred to authorship (see above). Still, we may consider the argument which, based on the assumption that it did, is to the effect that if so many Psalms (as 73 in the Hebrew text, more in the Greek text, and all in later Jewish tradition) were attributed to David, some must actually be his, though many so entitled are demonstrably and admittedly not. In a word, where there is much smoke, there must have been some fire. The argument at best does not seem to justify more than a strong probability that David wrote psalms; and possibly the fact that David was a famous poet, even though all his poems more nearly resembled 2Sa_1:19-27 than the Psalms, coupled with his fame as a zealous worshipper of Jahweh, may be the extent of the historical fact underlying the late traditions. But even granted that the evidence were strong enough to justify the statement that some Psalms of David are preserved in the Psalter, the most important problem still remains to be solved, viz. which Psalms in particular are David’s? It will be found on an examination that the positive reasons assigned for regarding any particular Psalm as David’s are inconclusive: they often amount to nothing more than an argument that there is nothing in such and such Psalms which forbids us to ascribe them to David. There are some Psalms which in whole or in part may not be incompatible with what we know of David’s life, but the allusions are too general to enable us to deny that they are equally applicable to many other lives. The Psalm which is most generally claimed for David by those who go beyond the general argument and specify particular Psalms as his, is Psa_18:1-50; but many who hold this to be in the main David’s feel compelled to treat Psa_18:20-27 as later. An external argument in favour of the Davidic authorship of this Psalm has often been sought in the fact that it appears in 2Sa_22:1-51 as well as in the Psalter; but the argument is of little value; it carries us back, indeed, beyond the evidence of the Psalm-titles, but the Books of Samuel were composed long after David’s time, and 2Sa_22:1-51 occurs in a section (2Sa_21:1-22; 2Sa_22:1-51; 2Sa_23:1-39; 2Sa_24:1-25) which shows signs that entitle us to conclude that it was inserted after the main work was complete. We may safely conclude thus: There are Psalms in the Psalter of which, if we may remove certain parts as later interpolations, a residuum remains of which it would be unjustifiable to assert that it was not written by David.
6. Character of the contents: the ‘I’ of the Psalms.—But if we cannot determine the authors of the Psalms, or the particular occasions out of which they sprang, we may yet ask, and ought to ask, What type of persons wrote them, what type of experiences do they embody, with what type of subject do they deal? In order to answer these questions, it will be necessary to discuss briefly an important principle of interpretation.
A considerable proportion of the Psalms describe, from the writer’s standpoint, the experiences or aspirations or the religions faith of the nation or of the religious community—whether this community be co-extensive with the nation or a group or party within it. The Psalms which most obviously belong to this class are those in which the pronoun of the first person plural is used. These are some 27 in number (see Psa_21:1-13; Psa_33:1-22; Psa_46:1-11; Psa_47:1-9; Psa_48:1-14; Psa_50:1-23; Psa_60:1-12, [both vv. 1–4 and 5–12 = 108:6–13] 65. [in v. 3a Vulg. [Note: Vulgate.] and LXX [Note: Septuagint.] read ‘us’ for ‘me’] 67, 79, 80, 81, 90, 95, 98, 99, 100, 105, 113, 115, 117, 124, 126, 132, 136, 144, 147). In another group of 25 Psalms (viz. Psa_8:1-9; Psa_17:1-15; Psa_22:1-31; Psa_40:1-17; Psa_44:1-26; Psa_59:1-17; Psa_62:1-12; Psa_66:1-20; Psa_68:1-35; Psa_71:1-24; Psa_74:1-23; Psa_75:1-10; Psa_78:1-72; Psa_84:1-12; Psa_85:1-13; Psa_89:1-52; Psa_94:1-23; Psa_103:1-22; Psa_106:1-48; Psa_116:1-19; Psa_118:1-29; Psa_122:1-9; Psa_135:1-21; Psa_137:1-9; Psa_141:1-10) the personal pronoun is sometimes in the first singular, sometimes in the first plural; this interchange is not perhaps to be always accounted for in the same way; but in some of these Psalms it is obviously the main purpose of the writer to describe the experiences of the nation (cf. e.g., Psa_44:1-26; Psa_74:1-23; Psa_78:1-72). Another group of Psalms, not so easily defined as the two preceding, but including some 22 Psalms at least (Psa_1:1-6; Psa_12:1-8; Psa_14:1-7, (= 53) 15, 19:1–6, 24, 29, 34, 72, 76, 82, 93, 96, 97, 107, 112, 114, 125, 127, 133, 134, 148, 149, 150), are as little limited to individual experience as the first: they are, for example, calls to praise God for His goodness, or descriptions of the character which is pleasing to God. The remainder of the Psalms, about (yet barely) half the whole number, appear superficially, in contrast to the foregoing, to describe the experiences or aspirations of some individual. They are written in the first person singular. But in one Psalm, owing to its peculiar structure, the Psalmist supplies the interpretation of the pronoun of first singular, and in this case the singular pronoun refers, not to an individual, but to the nation (see Psa_129:1). The personification of the nation as an individual which underlies this usage occurs often in Hebrew literature (see Servant of the Lord, § 5). How far does it extend in the Psalter? is the much afflic