Psalms
Psalms
Psalms in the Apostolic Church included OT Psalms and similar hymns of praise to God, as sung to musical accompaniment. In 1Co 14:15 St. Paul contemplates impromptu utterances under the influence of the Spirit, and appeals for the use of the reason in praise no less than in prayer. In 1Co 14:26 he assumes that members of the congregation will bring their assembly psalms which they have composed or learnt and wish to sing with or before others. The Psalms of Solomon, which may be dated c._ 50 b.c., prove the use of sacred poetry among the Jews at this period. Forceful hymns, full of noble indignation against Roman oppression and Jewish secularity, in their praise of patience and resignation they express the feeling that Israel deserves chastening. Like the Benedictus they look for a Messiah of the house of David. But they fall short of the canticles of the NT in spiritual insight. The tone is self-righteous and sometimes fierce.
The use of psalms in private is referred to in Jam 5:13 : He that is merry let him sing psalms (cf. Eph 5:19).
A. E. Burn.
Fuente: Dictionary of the Apostolic Church
Psalms
The Psalter, or Book of Psalms, is the first book of the “Writings” (Kethubhim or Hagiographa), i.e. of the third section of the printed Hebrew Bible of to-day. In this section of the Hebrew Bible the canonical order of books has varied greatly; whereas in the first and second sections, that is, in the Law and the Prophets, the books have always been in pretty much the same order. The Talmudic list (Baba Bathra 14 b) gives Ruth precedence to Psalms. St. Jerome heads the “Writings” with Psalms, in his “Epistola ad Paulinum” (P.L., XXII, 547); with Job in his “Prologus Galeatus” (P.L., XXVIII, 555). Many Masoretic MSS., especially Spanish, begin the “Writings” with Paralipomena or Chronicles. German Massoretic MSS. have led to the order of book in the Kethubhim of the modern Hebrew Bible. The Septuagint puts Psalms first among the Sapiential Books. These latter books, in “Cod. Alexandrinus”, belong to the third section and follow the Prophets. The Clementine Vulgate has Psalms and the Sapiential Books in the second section, and after Job. This article will treat the name of the Psalter, its contents, the authors of the Psalms, their canonicity, text, versions, poetic form, poetic beauty, theological value, and liturgical use.
I. NAME
The Book of Psalms has various names in the Hebrew, Septuagint, and Vulgate texts.
A. The Hebrew name is , “praises” (from , “to praise”); or , “book of praises”. This latter name was known to Hippolytus, who wrote Hebraioi periegrapsanten biblon Sephra theleim (ed. Lagarde, 188). There is some doubt in regard to the authenticity of this fragment. There can be no doubt, however, in regard to the transliteration Spharthelleim by Origen (P.G., XII, 1084); and “sephar tallim, quod interpretatur volumen hymnorum” by St. Jerome (P.L., XXVIII, 1124). The name “praises” does not indicate the contents of all the Psalms. Only Ps. cxliv (cxlv) is entitled “praise” (). A synonymous name hallel was, in later Jewish ritual, given to four groups of songs of praise, Pss. civ-cvii, cxi-cxvii, cxxxv-cxxxvi, cxlvi-cl (Vulg., ciii-cvi, cx-cxvi, cxxxvi-cxxxviii, cxlv-cl). Not only these songs of praise, but the entire collection of psalms made up a manual for temple service — a service chiefly of praise; hence the name “Praises” was given to the manual itself.
B. The Septuagint MSS. of the Book of Psalms read either psalmoi, psalms, or psalterion, psalter. The word psalmos is a translation of , which occurs in the titles of fifty-seven psalms. Psalmos in classical Greek meant the twang of the strings of a musical instrument; its Hebrew equivalent (from , “to trim”) means a poem of “trimmed” and measured form. The two words show us that a psalm was a poem of set structure to be sung to the accompaniment of stringed instruments. The New Testament text uses the names psalmoi (Luke 24:44), biblos psalmon (Luke 20:42; Acts 1:20), and Daveid (Hebrews 4:7).
C. The Vulgate follows the Greek text and translates psalmi, liber psalmorum. The Syriac Bible in like manner names the collection Mazmore.
II. CONTENTS
The Book of Psalms contains 150 psalms, divided into five books, together with four doxologies and the titles of most of the psalms.
A. NUMBER
The printed Hebrew Bible lists 150 psalms. Fewer are given by some Massoretic MSS. The older Septuagint MSS. (Codd. Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus) give 151, but expressly state that the last psalm is not canonical: “This psalm was written by David with his own hand and is outside the number”, exothen tou arithmou. The Vulgate follows the numeration of the Septuagint but omits Ps. cli. The differences in the numerations of the Hebrew and Vulgate texts may be seen in the following scheme:
Hebrew 1-8 = Septuagint/Vulgate 1-8 Hebrew 9 = Septuagint/Vulgate 9-10 Hebrew 10-112 = Septuagint/Vulgate 11-113 Hebrew 113 = Septuagint/Vulgate 114-115 Hebrew 114-115 = Septuagint/Vulgate 116 Hebrew 116-145 = Septuagint/Vulgate 117-146 Hebrew 146-147 = Septuagint/Vulgate 147 Hebrew 148-150 = Septuagint/Vulgate 148-150
In the course of this article, we shall follow the Hebrew numeration and bracket that of the Septuagint and Vulgate. Each numeration has its defects; neither is preferable to the other. The variance between Massorah and Septuagint texts in this numeration is likely enough due to a gradual neglect of the original poetic form of the Psalms; such neglect was occasioned by liturgical uses and carelessness of copyists. It is admitted by all that Pss. ix and x were originally a single acrostic poem; they have been wrongly separated by Massorah, rightly united by the Septuagint and Vulgate. On the other hand Ps. cxliv (cxlv) is made up of two songs — verses 1-11 and 12-15. Pss. xlii and xliii (xli and xlii) are shown by identity of subject (yearning for the house of Jahweh), of metrical structure and of refrain (cf. Heb. Ps. xlii, 6, 12; xliii, 5), to be three strophes of one and the same poem. The Hebrew text is correct in counting as one Ps. cxvi (cxiv + cxv) and Ps. cxlvii (cxlvi + cxlviii). Later liturgical usage would seem to have split up these and not a few other psalms. Zenner (“Die Chorgesange im Buche der Psalmen”, II, Freiburg im Br., 1896) ingeniously combines into what he deems were the original choral odes: Pss. i, ii, iii, iv; vi + xiii (vi + xii); ix + x (ix); xix, xx, xxi (xx, xxi, xxii); xlvi + xlvii (xlvii + xlviii); lxix + lxx (lxx + lxxi); cxiv + cxv (cxiii); cxlviii, cxlix, cl. A choral ode would seem to have been the original form of Pss. xiv + lxx (xiii + lxix). The two strophes and the epode are Ps. xiv; the two antistrophes are Ps. lxx (cf. Zenner-Wiesmann, “Die Psalmen nach dem Urtext”, Munster, 1906, 305). It is noteworthy that, on the breaking up of the original ode, each portion crept twice into the Psalter: Ps. xiv = liii, Ps. lxxx = xl, 14-18. Other such duplicated psalms are Ps. cviii, 2-6 (cvii) = Ps. lvii, 8-12 (lvi); Ps. cviii, 7-14 (cvii) = Ps. lx, 7-14 (lix); Ps. lxxi, 1-3 (lxx) = Ps. xxxi, 2-4 (xxx). This loss of the original form of some of the psalms is allowed by the Biblical Commission (1 May, 1910) to have been due to liturgical uses, neglect of copyists, or other causes.
B. DIVISION
The Psalter is divided into five books. Each book, save the last, ends with a doxology. These liturgical forms differ slightly. All agree that the doxologies at the end of the first three books have nothing to do with the original songs to which they have been appended. Some consider that the fourth doxology was always a part of Ps. cvi (cv) (cf. Kirkpatrick, “Psalms”, IV and V, p. 6343). We prefer, with Zenner-Wiesmann (op. cit., 76) to rate it as a doxology pure and simple. The fifth book has no need of an appended doxology. Ps. cl, whether composed as such or not, serves the purpose of a grand doxology which fittingly brings the whole Psalter to its close.
The five books of the Psalter are made up as follows: Bk. I: Pss. i-xli (i-xl); doxology, Ps. xli, 14. Bk. II: Pss. xlii-lxxii (xli-lxxi); doxology, Ps. lxxii, 18-20. Bk. III: Pss. lxxiii-lxxxix (lxxii-lxxxviii); doxology, Ps. lxxxix, 53. Bk. IV: Pss. xc-cvi (lxxxix-cv); doxology, Ps. cvi, 48. Bk. V: Pss. cvii-cl (cvi-cl); no doxology. In the Massoretic text, the doxology is immediately followed by an ordinal adjective indicating the number of the succeeding book; not so in the Septuagint and Vulgate. This division of the Psalter into five parts belongs to early Jewish tradition. The Midrash on Ps. i tells us that David gave to the Jews five books of psalms to correspond to the five books of the Law given them by Moses. This tradition was accepted by the early Fathers. Hippolytus, in the doubtful fragment already referred to, calls the Psalter and its five books a second Pentateuch (ed. Lagarde, 193). St. Jerome defends the division in his important “Prologus Galeatus” (P.L., XXVIII, 553) and in Ep. cxl (P.L., XXII, 11, 68). Writing to Marcella (P.L., XXIII, 431), he says: “In quinque siquidem volumina psalterium apud Hebraeos divisum est”. He, however, contradicts this statement in his letter to Sophronius (P.L., XXVIII, 1123): “Nos Hebraeorum auctoritatem secute et maxime apostolorum, qui sempter in Novo Testamento psalmorum librum nominant, unum volumen asserimus”.
C. TITLES
In the Hebrew Psalter, all the psalms, save thirty-four, have either simple or rather complex titles. The Septuagint and Vulgate supply titles to most of the thirty-four psalms that lack Hebrew titles. These latter, called “orphan psalms” by Jewish tradition, are thus distributed in the five books of the Psalter: Bk. I has 4 — Pss. I, iii, x, xxxiii [i, iii, ix (b), xxxii]. Of these, Ps. x is broken from Ps. ix; Ps. xxxiii has a title in the Septuagint and Vulgate. Bk. II has 2 — Pss. xliii, lxxi (xlii, lxx). Of these, Ps. xliii is broken from Ps. xlii. Bk. III has none. Bk. IV has 10 — Pss. xci, xciii-xcvii, xcix, xiv-cvi (xc, xcii-xcvi, xcviii, ciii-cv). Of these, all have titles in the Septuagint and Vulgate. Bk. V has 18 — Pss. cvii, cxi-cxix, cxxxv-cxxxvii, cxlvi-cl (cvi, cx-cxviii, cxxxiv, cxlv-cl). Of these, Ps. cxii has a title in the Vulgate, Ps. cxxxvii in the Septuagint and Vulgate; the quasi-title hallelu yah precedes nine (cxi-cxiii, cxxxv, cxlvi-cl); the Greek equivalent Allelouia precedes seven others (cvii, cxiv, cxvi-cxix, cxxxvi). Only Ps. cxv [cxiii (b)] has no title either in the Hebrew or the Septuagint. (1) Meaning of Titles
These titles tell us one or more of five things about the psalms: (a) the author, or, perhaps, collection; (b) the historical occasion of the song; (c) its poetic characteristics; (d) its musical setting; (e) its liturgical use.
(a) Titles indicating the author
Bk. I has four anonymous psalms out of the forty-one (Pss. i, ii, x, xxxiii). The other thirty-seven are Davidic. Ps. x is part of ix; Ps. xxxiii is Davidic in the Septuagint; and Pss. I and ii are prefatory to the entire collection. — Bk. II has three anonymous psalms out of the thirty-one (Pss. xliii, lxvi, lxxi). Of these, eight Pss., xlii-xlix (xli-xlviii) are “of the sons of Korah” (libne qorah); Ps. 1 is “of Asaph”; Pss. li-lxxii “of the Director” (lamenaççeah) and Ps. lxxii “of Solomon”. Ps. xliii (xlii) is part of xlii (xli); Pss. lxvi and lxvii (lxv and lxvi) and Davidic in the Septuagint and Vulgate. — Bk. III has one Davidic psalm, lxxxvi (lxxxv); eleven “of Asaph”, lxxiii-lxxxiii (lxxii-lxxxii); four “of the sons of Korah”, lxxxiv, lxxxv, lxxxvii, lxxxviii (lxxxiii, lxxxiv, lxxxvi, lxxxvii); and one “of Ethan”, lxxxix (lxxxviii). Ps. lxxxviii is likewise assigned to Heman the Ezrahite. — Bk. IV has two Davidic psalms, ci and ciii (c and cii), and one “of Moses”. Moreover, the Septuagint assigns to David eight others, Pss. xci, xciii-xcvii, xciv, civ (xc, xcii-xcvi, xcviii, ciii). The remainder are anonymous. — Bk. V has twenty-seven anonymous psalms out of forty-four. Pss. cviii-cx, cxxii, cxxiv, cxxxi, cxxxiii, cxxxviii-cxlv (cvii-cix, cxxi, cxxiii, cxxx, cxxxii, cxxxvii-cxlv) are Davidic. Ps. cxxvii is “of Solomon”. The Septuagint and Vulgate assign Ps. cxxxvii (cxxxvi) David, Pss. cxlvi-cxlviii (cxlv-cxlviii) to Aggeus and Zacharias.
Besides these title-names of authors and collections which are clear, there are several such names which are doubtful. — Lamenaççeah (; Septuagint, eis to telos; Vulg., in finem; Douai, “unto the end”; Aquila, to nikopoio, “for the victor”; St. Jerome, victori; Symmachus, epinikios, “a song of victory”; Theodotion, eis to nikos, “for the victory”) now generally interpreted “of the Director”. The Pi’el of the root means, in I Par., xv, 22, “to be leader” over the basses in liturgical service of song (cf. Oxford Hebrew Dictionary, 664). The title “of the Director” is probably analogous to “of David”, “of Asaph”, etc., and indicates a “Director’s Collection” of Psalms. This collection would seem to have contained 55 of our canonical psalms, whereof 39 were Davidic, 9 Korahite, 5 Asaphic, and 2 anonymous.
Al-Yeduthun, in Pss. lxii and lxxvii (lxi and lxxvi), where the preposition al might lead one to interpret Yeduthun as a musical instrument or a tune. In the title to Ps. xxxix (xxxviii), “of the Director, of Yeduthun, a song of David”, Yeduthun is without al and seems to be the Director (Menaççeah) just spoken of. That David had such a director is clear from I Par., xvi, 41.
(b) Titles indicating the historical occasion of the song
Thirteen Davidic psalms have such titles. Pss. vii, xviii, xxxiv, lii, liv, lvi, lvii, lix, cxlii (vii, xvii, xxxiii, li, liii, lv, lvi, lviii, cxli) are referred to the time of David’s persecution by Saul; Ps. lx (lix) to that of the victories in Mesopotamia and Syria; Ps. li(l) to his sin; Pss. iii and lxiii (lxii) to his flight from Absalom.
(c) Titles indicating poetic characteristics of the psalm
Mizmor (; Septuagint, psalmos; Vulg., psalmus; a psalm), a technical word not used outside the titles of the Psalter; meaning a song set to stringed accompaniment. There are 57 psalms, most of them Davidic, with the title Mizmor.
Shir (; Septuagint, ode; Vulg., Canticum; a song), a generic term used 30 times in the titles (12 times together with Mizmor), and often in the text of the Psalms and of other books. In the Psalms (xlii, 9; lxix, 31; xxviii, 7) the song is generally sacred; elsewhere it is a lyric lay (Genesis 31:27; Isaiah 30:29), a love poem (Cant., i, 1.1), or a bacchanalian ballad (Isaiah 24:9; Ecclesiastes 7:5).
Maskil (; Septuagint, synedeos, or eis synesin; Vulg. intellectus or ad intellectum), an obscure form found in the titles of 13 psalms (xxxii, xlii, xliv, xlv, lii, lv, lxxiv, lxxviii, lxxxviii, lxxxix, cxliv). (a) Gesenius and others explain “a didactic poem”, from Hiph’il of (cf. Psalm 32:8; 1 Chronicles 28:19); but only Pss. xxxii and lxxviii are didactic Maskilim. (b) Ewald, Riehm and others suggest “a skilful artistic song”, from other uses of the cognate verb (cf. 2 Chronicles 30:22; Psalm 47:7); Kirkpatrick things “a cunning psalm” will do. It is difficult to see that the Maskil is either more artistic or more cunning than the Mizmor. (c) Delitzch and others interpret “a contemplative poem”; Briggs, “a meditation”. This interpretation is warranted by the usage of the cognate verb (cf. Isaiah 41:20; Job 34:27), and is the only one that suits all Maskilim.
Tephillah (); Septuagint, proseuche; Vulg., oratio; a prayer), the title to five psalms, xvii, lxxxvi, xc, cii, cxlii (xvi, lxxv, lxxxix, ci, cxli). The same word occurs in the conclusion to Bk. II (cf. Ps. lxxii, 20), “The prayers of David son of Yishai have been ended”. Here the Septuagint hymnoi (Vulg., laudes) points to a better reading, , “praise”.
Tehillah (; Septuagint, ainesis; Vulg., laudatio; “a song of praise”), is the title only of Ps. cxlv (cxliv).
Mikhtam (; Septuagint, stelographia or eis stelographian; Vulg., tituli inscriptio or in tituli inscriptionem), an obscure term in the title of six psalms, xvi, lvi-lx (xv, lv-lix), always to “of David”. Briggs (“Psalms”, I, lx; New York, 1906) with the Rabbis derives this title from , “gold”. The Mikhtamim are golden songs, “artistic in form and choice in contents”.
Shiggayon (; Septuagint merely psalmos; Vulg., psalmus; Aquila, agnonma; Symmachus and Theodotion, hyper agnoias; St. Jerome, ignoratio or pro ignoratione), occurs only in the title to Ps. vii. The root of the word means “to wander”, “to reel”, hence, according to Ewald, Delitzch, and others, the title means a wild dithyrambic ode with a reeling, wandering rhythm.
(d) Titles indicating the musical setting of a psalm (a specially obscure set)
Eight titles may indicate the melody of the psalm by citing the opening words of some well-known song:
Nehiloth (; Septuagint and Theodotion, hyper tes kleronomouses; Aquila, apo klerodosion; Symmachus, hyper klerouchion; St. Jerome, super haereditatibus; Vulg., pro ea quae haereditatem consequitur), occurs only in Ps. v. The ancient versions rightly derive the title from , “to inherit”; Baethgen (“Die Psalmen”, 3rd ed., 1904, p. xxxv) thinks Nehiloth was the first word of some ancient song; most critics translate “with wind instruments” wrong assuming that Nehiloth means flutes (, cf. Is. xxx, 29).
Al-tashheth [; Septuagint, Aquila, Symmachus, peri aphtharsias, except Ps. lxxv, Symmachus, peri aphtharsias; St. Jerome, ut non disperdas (David humilem et simplicem); Vulg., ne disperdas or ne corrumpas], in Pss. lvii-lix, lxxv (lvi-lviii, lxxiv), meaning “destroy not”, may be the beginning of a vintage song referred to in Is., lxv, 8. Symmachus gives, in title to Ps. lvii, peri tou me diaphtheires; and in this wise suggests that originally preceded .
Al-Muth-Labben (; Septuagint, hyper ton kyphion tou yiou; Vulg., pro occultis filii, “concerning the secret sins of the son”; Aquila, hyper akmes tou hiou, “of the youth of the son”; Theodotion, hyper akmes tou hyiou, “concerning the maturity of the son”) in Ps. ix, probably means “set to the tune ‘Death Whitens'”.
Al-ayyeleth hasshahar (; Septuagint, hyper tes antilepseos tes heothines; Vulg., pro susceptione matutina, “for the morning offering”; Aquila, hyper tes elaphou tes orthines; Symmachus, hyper tes boetheias tes orthines, “the help of the morning”; St. Jerome, pro cervo matutino), in Ps. xxii (xxi, very likely means “set to the tune ‘The Hind of the Morning'”.
Al Shoshannim in Pss. xlv and lxix (xliv and lxviii), Shushan-eduth in Ps. lx (lix), Shoshannim-eduth in Ps. lxxx (lxxix) seem to refer to the opening of the same song, “Lilies” or “Lilies of testimony”. The preposition is al or el. The Septuagint translates the consonants hyper ton Alloiothesomenon; Vulg., pro iis qui commutabuntur, “for those who shall be changed”.
Al Yonath elem rehoqim, in Ps. lvi (lv) means “set to ‘The dove of the distant terebinth'”, or, according to the vowels of Massorah, “set to ‘The silent dove of them that are afar'”. The Septuagint renders it hyper tou laou tou apo ton hagion memakrymmenou; Vulg., pro populo qui a sanctis longe factus est, “for the folk that are afar from the sanctuary”. Baethgen (op. cit., p. xli) explains that the Septuagint understands Israel to be the dove; reads elim for elem, and interprets the word to mean gods or sanctuary.
‘Al Mahalath (Ps. liii), Mahalath leannoth (Ps. lxxxviii) is transliterated by the Septuagint Maeleth; by Vulg., pro Maeleth. Aquila renders epi choreia, “for the dance”; the same idea is conveyed by Symmachus, Theodotion, Quinta, and St. Jerome (pro choro). The word ‘Al is proof that the following words indicate some well-known song to the melody of which Pss. liii and lxxxviii (lii and lxxxvii) were sung.
‘Al-Haggittith, in titles to Pss. viii, lxxxi, lxxxiv (vii, lxxx, lxxxiii). The Septuagint and Symmachus, hyper ton lenon; Vulg., and St. Jerome, pro torcularibus, “for the wine-presses”. They read gittoth, pl. of gath. The title may mean that these psalms were to be sung to some vintage-melody. The Massoretic title may mean a Gittite instrument (Targ., “the harp brought by David from Gath”), or a Gittite melody. Aquila and Theodotion follow the reading of Masorah and, in Ps. viii, translate the title hyper tes getthitidos; yet this same reading is said by Bellarmine (“Explanatio in Psalmos”, Paris, 1889), I, 43) to be meaningless.
One title probably means the kind of musical instrument to be used. Neginoth (; Septuagint, en psalmois, in Ps. iv, en hymnois elsewhere; Vulg., in carminibus; Symmachus, dia psalterion; St. Jerome, in psalmis) occurs in Pss. iv, vi, liv, lxvii, lxxvi (iv, vi, liii, liv, lxvi, lxxv). The root of the word means “to play on stringed instruments” (1 Samuel 16:16-18, 23). The title probably means that these psalms were to be accompanied in cantilation exclusively “with stringed instruments”. Ps. lxi (lx) has Al Neginath in its title, and was perhaps to be sung with one stringed instrument only.
Two titles seem to refer to pitch. Al-Alamoth (Psalm 46), “set to maidens”, i.e., to be sung with a soprano or falsetto voice. The Septuagint renders hyper ton kryphion; Vulg., pro occultis, “for the hidden”; Symmachus, hyper ton aionion, “for the everlasting”; Aquila, epi neanioteton; St. Jerome, pro juventutibus, “for youth”.
Al-Hassheminith (Pss. vi and xii), “set to the eighth”; Septuagint, hyper tes ogdoes; Vulg., pro octava. It has been conjectured that “the eighth” means an octave lower, the lower or bass register, in contrast with the upper or soprano register. In I Pr., xv, 20-21, Levites are assigned some “with psalteries set to ‘Alamoth'” (the upper register), others “with harps set to Sheminith” (the lower register).
(e) Titles indicating the liturgical use of a psalm
Hamma’aloth, in title of Pss. cxx-cxxxiv (cxix-cxxxiii); Septuagint, ode ton anabathmon; St. Jerome, canticum graduum, “the song of the steps”. The word is used in Ex., xx, 26 to denote the steps leading up from the women’s to the men’s court of the Temple plot. There were fifteen such steps. Some Jewish commentators and Fathers of the Church have taken it that, on each of the fifteen steps, one of these fifteen Gradual Psalms was chanted. Such a theory does not fit in with the content of these psalms; they are not temple-psalms. Another theory, proposed by Gesenius, Delitzsch, and others, refers “the steps” to the stair-like parallelism of the Gradual Psalms. This stair-like parallelism is not found in all the Gradual Psalms; nor is it distinctive of any of them. A third theory is the most probable. Aquila and Symmachus read eis tas anabaseis, “for the goings up”; Theodotion has asma to nanabaseon. These are a Pilgrim Psalter, a collection of pilgrim-songs of those “going up to Jerusalem for the festivals” (1 Samuel 1:3). Issias tells us the pilgrims went up singing (xxx, 29). The psalms in question would be well suited for pilgrim-song. The phrase “to go up” to Jerusalem (anabainein) seems to refer specially to the pilgrim goings-up (Mark 10:33; Luke 2:42, etc.). This theory is now commonly received. A less likely explanation is that the Gradual Psalms were sung by those “going up” from the Babylonian exile (Ezra 7:9).
Other liturgical titles are: “For the thank-offering”, in Ps. c (xcix); “To bring remembrance”, in Pss. xxxviii and lxx (xxxvii and lxix); “To teach”, in Ps. xl (xxxix); “For the last day or the Feast of Tabernacles”, in the Septuagint of Ps. xxix (xxviii), exodiou skenes; Vulg., in consummatione tabernaculi. Psalm xxx (xxix) is entitled “A Song at the Dedication of the House”. The psalm may have been used at the Feast of the Dedication of the Temple, the Encaenia (John 10:22). This feast was instituted by Judas Machabeus (1 Maccabees 4:59) to commemorate the rededication of the temple after its desecration by Antiochus. Its title shows us that Ps. xcii (xci) was to be sung on the Sabbath. The Septuagint entitles Ps. xxiv (xxiii) tes mias sabbaton, “for the first day of the week”; Ps. xlviii (xlvii) deutera sabbatou, “for the second day of the week”; Ps. xciv (xciii), tetradi sabbaton, “for the fourth day of the week”; Ps. xciii (xcii) eis ten hemeran, “for the day before the Sabbath”. The Old Latin entitles Ps. lxxxi (lxxx) quinta sabbati, “the fifth day of the week”. The Mishna (Tamid, VII, 13) assigns the same psalms for the daily Temple service and tells us that Ps. lxxxii (lxxxi) was for the morning sacrifice of the third day (cf. James Wm. Thirtle, “The Titles of the Psalms, Their Nature and Meaning Explained”, New York, 1905).
(2) Value of the Titles
Many of the critics have branded these titles as spurious and rejected them as not pertaining to Holy Writ; such critics are de Wette, Cheyne, Olshausen, and Vogel. More recent critical Protestant scholars, such as Briggs, Baethgen, Kirkpatrick, and Fullerton, have followed up the lines of Ewald, Delitzsch, Gesenius, and Koster, and have made much of the titles, so as thereby to learn more and more about the authors, collections, occasions, musical settings, and liturgical purposes of the Psalms.
Catholic scholars, while not insisting that the author of the Psalms superscribed the titles thereof, have always considered these titles as an integral part of Holy Writ. St. Thomas (in Ps. vi) assigns the titles to Esdras: “Sciendum est quod tituli ab Esdra facti sunt partim secundum ea quae tune agebantur, et partim secundum ea quae contigerunt.” So comprehensive a statement of the case is scarcely to the point; most modern scholars give to the titles a more varied history. Almost all, however, are at one in considering as canonical these at times obscured directions. In this unanimity Catholics carry out Jewish tradition. Pre-Massoretic tradition preserved the titles as Scripture, but lost much of the liturgical and musical meaning, very likely because of changes in the liturgical cantilation of the Psalms. Massoretic tradition has kept carefully whatsoever of the titles it received. It makes the titles to be part of Sacred Scripture, preserving their consonants, vowel-points, and accents with the very same care which is given to the rest of the Jewish Canon. The Fathers give to the titles that respect and authority which they give to the rest of Scripture. True, the obscurity of the titles often leads the Fathers to mystical and highly fanciful interpretations. St. John Chrysostom (“De Compunctione”, II, 4; P.G., XLVII, 415) interprets hyper tes ogdoes, “for the eighth day”, “the day of rest”, “the day of eternity”. St. Ambrose (In Lucam, V, 6) sees in this title the same mystical number which he notes in the Eight Beatitudes of St. Matthew, in the eighth day as a fulfilment of our hope, and in eight as a sum of all virtues: “pro octava enim multi inscribuntur psalmi”. In this matter of mystical interpretations of the titles, St. Augustine is in advance of the generally literal and matter-of-fact Sts. Ambrose and John Chrysostom. Yet when treating the worth and the genuiness of the titles, no Father is more decided and pointed than is the great Bishop of Hippo. To him the titles are inspired Scripture. Commenting on the title to Ps. li, “of David, when Nathan the Prophet came to him, what time he had gone into Bethsabee”, St. Augustine (P.L., XXXVI, 586) says it is an inspired as is the story of David’s fall, told in the Second Book of Kings (xi, 1-6); “Utraque Scriptura canonica est, utrique sine ulla dubitatione a Christianis fides adhibenda est”. Some recent Catholic scholars who are of St. Augustine’s mind in this matter are: Cornely, “Specialis Introduction in libros V. T.”, II, 85; Zschokke, “Hist. Sacr. V. T.”, 206; Thalhofer, “Erklärung der Psalmen”, 7th ed., 1904, 8; Patrizi, “Cento Salmi”, Rome, 1875, 32; Danko, “Historia V. T.”, 276; Hoberg, “Die Psalmen der Vulgata”, 1892, p. xii. Only a very few Catholic scholars have denied that the titles are an integral art of Holy Writ. Gigot, in “Special Introductions to the Old Testament” (New York, 1906), II, 75, cites with approval this denial by Lesêtre, “Le Livre des Psaumes” (Paris, 1883), p. 1. Barry, in “Tradition of Scripture” (New York, 1906), 102, says: “It is plausible to maintain that inscriptions to which the Massorah, LXX, and Vulgate bear witness cannot be rejected. But to look on them, under all circumstances, as portions of Scripture would be to strain the Tridentine Decrees”. Because of the danger that, without grave reason, these time-honoured parts of the Bible may be rated as extra-canonical, the Biblical Commission has recently (1 May, 1910) laid special stress on the value of the titles. From the agreement we have noted between the titles of Massorah and those of the Septuagint, Vulgate, Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, St. Jerome, etc., the Commission has decided that the titles are older than the Septuagint and have come down to us, if not from the authors of the Psalms, at least from ancient Jewish tradition, and that, on this account, they may not be called into doubt, unless there be some serious reason against their genuineness. Indeed, the very disagreements which we have noted led us to the same conclusion. By the time the Septuagint was written, the titles must have been exceedingly old; for the tradition of their vocalization was already very much obscured.
III. AUTHORS OF THE PSALMS
A. WITNESS OF TRADITION
(1) Jewish tradition is uncertain as to the authors of the Psalms. Baba Bathra (14 f) mentions ten; Pesachim (10) attributes all the Psalms to David.
(2) Christian tradition is alike uncertain. St. Ambrose, “In Ps. xliii and xlvii” (P.L., XIV, 923), makes David to be the sole author. St. Augustine, in “De Civitate Dei”, XVII, 14 (P.L., XLI, 547), thinks that all the Psalms are Davidic and that the names of Aggeus and Zacharias were superscribed by the poet in prophetic spirit. St. Philastrius, Haer. 130 (P.L., XII, 1259), brands the opposite opinion as heretical. On the other hand, plurality of authorship was defended by Origen, “In Ps.” (P.G., XII, 1066); St. Hilary, “In Ps. Procem. 2) (P.L., IX, 233); Eusebius, “In Ps. Procem. In Pss. 41, 72” (P.G., XXIII, 74, 368); and many others. St. Jerome, “Ad Cyprianum, Epist. 140, 4 (P.L., XXII, 1169), says that “they err who deem all the psalms are David’s and not the work of those whose names are superscribed”.
(3) This disagreement, in matter of authorship of the Psalms, is carried from the Fathers to the theologians. Davidic authorship is defended by St. Thomas, the converted Jew Archbishop Paul of Burgos, Bellarmine, Salmeron, S, Mariana; multiple authorship is defended by Nicholas of Lyra, Cajetan, Sixtus Senensis, Bonfrere, and Menochio.
(4) The Church has come to no decision in this matter. The Council of Trent (Sess. IV, 8 April, 1546), in its decrees on Sacred Scripture, includes “Psalterium Davidicum, 150 Psalmorum” among the Canonical Books. This phrase does not define Davidic authorship any more than the number 150, but only designates the book, which is defined to be canonical (cf. Pallavicino, “Istoria del Concilio di Trento”, l. VI, 1591. Naples, 1853, I, 376). In the preliminary vota, fifteen Fathers were for the name “Psalmi David”; six for “Psalterium Davidicum”; nine for “Libri Psalmorum”; two for “Libri 150 Psalmorum”; sixteen for the name adopted, “Psalterium Davidicum 150 Psalmorum”; and two had no concern which of these names was chosen (cf. Theiner, “Acta Authentica Councilii Tridentini”, I, 72 sq.). From the various vota it is clear that the Council had no intention whatsoever of defining Davidic authorship.
(5) The recent Decree of the Biblical Commission (1 May, 1910) decides the following points: Neither the wording of the decrees of the councils nor the opinions of certain Fathers have such weight as to determine that David is sole author of the whole Psalter. It cannot be prudently denied that David is the chief author of the songs of the Psalter. Especially can it not be denied that David is the author of those psalms which, either in the Old or in the New Testament, are clearly cited under the name of David, for instance ii, xvi, xviii, xxxii, lxix, cx (ii, xv, xvii, xxxi, lxviii, cix). B. WITNESS OF OLD TESTAMENT
In the above decision the Biblical Commission has followed not only Jewish and Christian tradition, but Jewish and Christian Scripture as well. The Old Testament witness to the authorship of the Psalms is chiefly the titles. These seem to attribute various psalms, especially of Books I-III, to David, Asaph, the sons of Korah, Solomon, Moses, and others.
(1) David
The titles of seventy-three psalms in the Massoretic Text and of many more in the Septuagint seem to single out David as author: cf. Pss. iii-xli (iii-xl), i.e. all of Bk. I save only x and xxxiii; Pss. li-lxx (l-lxix), except lxvi and lxvii, in Bk. II; Ps. lxxxvi (lxxxv) of Bk. III; Ps. ciii (cii) in Bk. IV; Pss. cviii-cx, cxxii, cxxiv, cxxxi, cxxxiii, cxxxv-cxlv (cvii-cix, cxxi, cxxiii, cxxx, cxxxiv-cxliv) of Bk. V. The Hebrew title is . It is now generally held that, in this Hebrew word, the preposition le has the force of a genitive, and that the Septuagint tou David “of David”, is a better translation than the Vulgate ipsi David, “unto David himself”. Does this preposition mean authorship? No in every title; else both David and the Director are the authors of Ps. xix (xviii), and all the sons of Korah, together with the Director, are joint authors of the psalms attributed to them. In the case of such composite titles as “of the Director, a psalm of David” (Ps. xix), or “of the Director, of the sons of Korah, a psalm” (Ps. xlviii), we probably have indications not of authorship but of various collections of psalms — the collections entitled “David”, “the Director”, “the sons of Korah”. Just as the New Testament, the Council of Trent, and many Fathers of the Church speak of “David”, “the Psalter of David”, “the Psalms of David”, not in truth to infer that all the psalms are David’s, but because he was the psalmist par excellence, so the titles of many psalms assign them not so much to their authors as to their collectors or to the chief author of the collection to which they pertain. On the other hand, some of the longer titles go to show that “of David” may means authorship. Take an instance: “Of the Director, to the tune ‘Destroy not’, of David, a chosen piece (Mikhtam), when he fled from the face of Saul into the cave” (Ps. lvii). The historical occasion of the Davidic composition of the song, the lyric quality of the song, its inclusion in the early collection “of David” and later in the Director’s hymnbook, the tune to which the psalm was either written by David or set by the Director — all these things seem to be indicated by the very composite title under consideration. Of a sort with the Davidic titles is the ending subscribed to the first two books of the Psalms: “Amen, Amen; ended are the phrases of David, son of Yishai” (Ps. lxxii, 20). This subscription is more ancient than the Septuagint; it would be altogether out of place were not David the chief author of the psalms of the two books whereto it is appended.
Further Old-Testament evidence of Davidic authorship of the Psalms, as suggested by the Biblical Commission’s recent Decree, are David’s natural poetic talent, shown in his song and dirges of II Kings and I Par., together with the fact that it was he who instituted the solemn levitical cantilation of psalms in the presence of the Ark of the Covenant (1 Chronicles 16:23-25). The songs and dirges attributed to David are significantly alike to the Davidic psalms in spirit and style and wording. Let us examine the opening line of II Kings, xxii: “And David spoke to Jahweh the words of this song in the day that Jahweh saved him from the grasp of his foes and out of the hands of Saul, and he said: 2. Jahweh is my Cliff, my Fortress, my Way of Escape, 3. My God, my Rock to Whom I betake me, My Shield, the Horn of my salvation, my Tower. My Refuge, my Saviour, from wrong dost Thou save me. 4. Shouting praise, I cry to Jahweh, And from my foe I get salvation”. The two songs are clearly identical, the slight differences being probably due in the main to different liturgical redactions of the Psalter. In the end the writer of II Kings gives “the last words of David” (xxiii, 1) — to wit, a short psalm in the Davidic style wherein David speaks of himself as “Israel’s sweet singer of songs”, “egregius psaltes Israel” (2 Samuel 23:2). In like manner the Chronicler (1 Chronicles 16:8-36) quotes as Davidic a song made up of Ps. cv, 1-13, Ps. xcvi, and a small portion of Ps. cvi. Finally, the Prophet Amos addresses the Samarians: “Ye that sing to the sound of the psaltery; they have thought themselves to have instruments of music like David” (vi, 5). The poetic power of David stands out as a characteristic of the Shepherd King. His elegiac plaints at the death of Saul and Jonathan (II Kings, I, 19-27) reveal some power, but not that of the Davidic psalms. The above reasons for Davidic authorship are impugned by many who insist on the late redaction of II Kings, 21-24 and upon the discrepancies between the passages we have paralleled. The question of late redaction of the Davidic songs in II Kings is not within our scope; nor does such late redaction destroy the force of our appeal to the Old Testament, since that appeal is to the Word of God. In regard to the discrepancies, we have already said that they are explainable by the admission that our Psalter is the result of various liturgical redactions, and does not present all the psalms in the precise form in which they proceeded from their original writers.
(2) Asaph
Asaph is accredited, by the titles, with twelve psalms, l, lxxiii-lxxxiii (xlix, lxxii-lxxxii). These psalms are all national in character and pertain to widely-separated periods of Jewish history. Ps. lxxxiii (lxxxii), although assigned by Briggs (“Psalms”, New York, 1906, p. lxvii) to the early Persian period, seems to have been written at the time of the havoc wrought by the Assyrian invasion of Tiglath-pileser III in 737 B.C. Ps. lxxiv (lxxiii) was probably written, as Briggs surmises, during the Babylonian Exile, after 586 B.C. Asaph was a Levite, the son of Barachias (1 Chronicles 6:39), and one of the three chiefs of the Levitical choir (1 Chronicles 15:17). The “sons of Asaph” were set aside “to prophesy with harps and with psalteries and with cymbals” (1 Chronicles 25:1). It is probable that members of this family composed the psalms which later were collected into an Asaph psalter. The features of these Asaph psalms are uniform: frequent allusions to the history of Israel with a didactic purpose; sublimity and vehemence of style; vivid description; an exalted conception of the deity.
(3) The Sons of Korah
The Sons of Korah are named in the titles of eleven psalms — xlii-xlix, lxxxiv, lxxxv, lxxxvii, lxxxviii (xli-xlviii, lxxxiii, lxxxiv, lxxxvi, lxxxvii). The Korahim were a family of temple singers (2 Chronicles 20:19). It can scarcely be that each psalm of this group was jointly composed by all the sons of Korah; each was rather composed by some member of the guild of Korah; or, perhaps, all were gathered from the various sources into one liturgical hymnal by the guild of the sons of Korah. At all events, there is a oneness of style to these hymns which is indicative of oneness of Levitical spirit. The features of the Korahite psalms are; a great love for the Holy City; a yearning for the public worship of Israel; a supreme trust in Jahweh; and a poetic form which is simple, elegant, artistic, and well-balanced. From their Messianic ideas and historical allusions, these psalms seem to have been composed between the days of Isaias and the return from exile.
(4) Moses
Moses is in the title of Ps. xc (lxxxix). St. Augustine (P.L., XXXVII, 1141) does not admit Mosaic authorship; St. Jerome (P.L., XXII, 1167) does. The author imitates the songs of Moses in Deut., xxxii and xxxiii; this imitation may be the reason of the title.
(5) Solomon
Solomon is in the titles to Pss. lxxii and cxxvii (lxxi and cxxvi), probably for a similar reason.
(6) Ethan
Ethan, in the title of Ps. lxxxix (lxxxviii), should probably be Idithun. The Psalter of Idithun, of Yeduthun, contained also Pss. xxxix, lxii, lxxvii (xxxviii, lxi, lxxvi).
C. WITNESS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
To Catholics, believing as they do fully in the Divinity of Christ and inerrancy of Holy Writ, New Testament citations render Pss. ii, xvi, xxxii, xxxv, lxix, cix, cx (ii, xv, xxxi, xxxiv, lxviii, cviii, cix) Davidic without the shadow of a doubt. When the Pharisees said that the Christ was the Son of David, Jesus put them the question: “How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying: The Lord said to my Lord” (cf. Matthew 22:43-45; Mark 12:36-37; Luke 20:42-44; Psalm 110:1). There can be here no question of the name of a collection “of David”. Nor is there question of a collection when St. Peter, on the first Pentecost in Jerusalem, says: “For David ascended not into heaven; but he himself said: The Lord said to my Lord etc.” (Acts 2:34). Davidic authorship is meant by Peter, when he cites Pss. lxix (lxviii), 26, cix (cviii), 8, and ii, 1-2 as “from the mouth of David” (Acts 1:16; 4:25). And when the chief Apostle has quoted Ps. xvi (xv), 8-11, as the words of David, he explains how these words were intended by the dead patriarch as a prophecy of centuries to come (Acts 2:25-32). St. Paul’s testimony is conclusive, when he (Romans 4:6; 11:9) assigns to David parts of Pss. xxxii, xxxv, and lxix ( xxxi, xxxiv, lxviii). A non-Catholic might object that St. Paul refers to a collection called “David”, especially as such a collection seems clearly meant by “in David”, en Daveid of Heb., iv, 7. We answer, that this is an evasion: had St. Paul meant a collection, he would have dictated en Daveid in the letter to the Romans.
D. The Critics incline to do away with all question of Davidic authorship. Briggs says: “It is evident from the internal character of these psalms, with a few possible exceptions, that David could not have written them” (Psalms, p. lxi). Ewald allows that this internal evidence shows David to have written Pss. iii, iv, vii, xi, xv, xviii, first part of xix, xxiv, xxix, xxxii, ci (iii, iv, vii, xi, xiv, xvii, xxiii, xxviii, xxxi, c).
IV. CANONICITY
A. The Christian Canon of the Psalms presents no difficulty; all Christians admit into their canon the 150 psalms of the Canon of Trent; all reject Ps. cli of the Septuagint, probably a Machabean addition to the canon.
B. The Jewish Canon presents a vexing problem. How has the Psalter been evolved? The traditional Jewish opinion, generally defended by Catholic scholars, is that not only the Jewish Canon of the Psalms but the entire Palestinian Canon of the Old Testament was practically closed during the time of Esdras (see CANON). This traditional opinion is probable; for the arguments in its favour, cf. Cornely, “Introductio Generalis in N. T. Libros”, I (Paris, 1894), 42.
(1) The Critical View
These arguments are not all admitted by the critics. Says Driver: “For the opinion that the Canon of the Old Testament was closed by Ezra, or his associates, there is no foundation in antiquity whatever” (“Introducton to the Literature of the Old Testament”, New York, 1892, p. x). In regard to the Psalms Wellhausen says: “Since the Psalter is the hymn-book of the congregation of the Second Temple, the question is not whether it contains any post-exilic psalms, but whether it contains any pre-exilic psalms” (Bleek’s “Introduction”, ed. 1876, 507). Hitzig (“Begriff der Kritik”, 1831) deems that Books III-V are entirely Machabean (168-135 B.C.). Olshausen (“Die Psalmen”, 1853) brings some of these psalms down to the Hasmonaean dynasty, and the reign of John Hyrcanus (135-105 B.C.). Duhm (“Die Psalmen”, 1899, p. xxi) allows very few pre-Machabean psalms, and assigns Pss. ii, xx, xxi, lxi, lxiii, lxxii, lxxxiv (b),cxxxii [ii, xix, lx, lxii, lxxi, lxxxiii (b), cxxxi] to the reigns of Aristobulus I (105-104 B.C.) and his brother Alexander Jannaus (104-79 B.C.); so that the Canon of the Psalter was not closed till 70 B.C. (p. xxiii). Such extreme views are not due to arguments of worth. So long as one refuses to accept the force of the traditional argument in favour of the Esdras Canon, one must at all events admit that the Jewish Canon of the Psalms was undoubtedly closed before the date of the Septuagint translation. This date is 285 B.C., if we accept the authority of the Letter of Aristeas (see SEPTUAGINT); or, at the very latest 132 B.C., the period at which Ben Sirach wrote, in the prologue to Ecclesiasticus, that “the law itself and the prophets and the rest of the books [i.e. the Hagiograha, of which were the Psalms] had been translated into Greek”. This is the opinion of Briggs (p. xii), who sets the final redaction of the Psalter in the middle of the second century B.C.
The gradual evolution of the Book of Psalms is now quite generally taken by the critics as a matter of course. Their application of the principles of higher criticism does not result in any uniformity of opinion in regard to the various strata of the Psalter. We shall present these strata as they are indicated by Prof. Briggs, probably the least rash of those who have lately published what are called “critical editions” of the Psalms. His method of criticism is the usual one; by a rather subjective standard of internal evidence, he carves up some psalms, patches up others, throws out portions of others, and “edits” all. He assigns seven psalms to the early Hebrew monarchy; seven to the middle monarchy; thirteen to the late monarchy; thirteen to the time of exile; thirty-three to the early Persian period; sixteen to the middle Persian period (the times of Nehemias); eleven to the late Persian period; “the great royal advent psalm” (Psalms 93, 96-100) together with eight others to the early Greek period (beginning with Alexander’s conquest); forty-two to the late Greek period, and to the Machabean period Pss. xxxiii, cii (b), cix (b), cxviii, cxxxix (c), cxxix of the Pilgrim Psalter and cxlvii, cxlix of the Hallels.
Of these psalms and portions of psalms, according to Briggs, thirty-one are “psalms apart”, that is, never were incorporated into a Psalter before the present canonical redaction was issued. The rest were edited in two or more of the twelve Psalters which mark the evolution of the Book of Psalms. The earliest collection of psalms was made up of seven Mikhtamim, “golden pieces”, of the middle Persian period. In the late Persian period thirteen Maskilim were put together as a collection of meditations. At the same time, seventy-two psalms were edited, as a prayer-book for use in the synagogue, under the name of “David”; of these thirteen have in their titles references to David’s life, and are thought to have formed a previous collection by themselves. In the early Greek period in Palestine, eleven psalms were gathered into the minor psalter entitled the “Sons of Korah”.
About the same time in Babylonia, twelve psalms were made into a Psalter entitled “Asaph”. Not long thereafter, in the same period, the exilic Ps. lxxxviii, together with two orphan Pss. lxvi and lxvii, were edited along with selections from “David,” “Sons of Korah”, and “Asaph”, for public worship of song in the synagogue; the name of this psalter was “Mizmorim”. A major psalter, the Elohist, Pss. xlii-lxxxiii (xli-lxxxii), is supposed to have been made up, in Babylonia, during the middle Greek period, of selections from “David”, “Korah”, “Asaph” and “Mizmorim”; the name is due to the use of Elohim and avoidance of Jahweh in these psalms. About the same time, in Palestine, a prayer-book was made up of 54 from “Mizmorim, 16 psalms from “David”, 4 from “Korah”, and 1 from “Asaph”; this major psalter bore the name of the “Director”. The Hallels, or Alleluiatic songs of praise, were made up into a psalter for temple service in the Greek period. These psalms have halleluyah (Praise ye Yah) either at the beginning (Pss. cxi, cxii), or at the close (Pss. civ, cv, cxv, cxvii), or at both the beginning and close (Pss. cvi, cxiii, cxxxv, cxlvi-cl). The Septuagint gives Allelouia also the beginning of Pss. cv, cvii, cxiv, cxvi, cxix, cxxxvi. Briggs includes as Hallels all these except cxviii and cxix, “the former being a triumphal Machabean song, the latter the great alphabetic praise of the law”. A like minor psalter of the Greek period was the “Pilgrim Psalter” (Pss. cxx-cxxxiv), a collection of “Songs of Pilgrimage”, the “Songs of Ascents”, or “Gradual Psalms”, which the pilgrims chanted while going up to Jerusalem for the three great feasts.
(2) The Catholic View
So extensive an application of divisive criticism to the Psalter does not meet the approval of Catholic exegetes. Successive redaction of the Psalms they readily admit, provided the doctrine of the inspiration of Holy Writ be not impugned. The doctrine of inspiration has regard to the Psalms as they now stand in the canon, and does not impede a Catholic from admitting various redactions of the Psalter previous to our present redaction; in fact, even uninspired liturgical redaction of the inspired Psalms would not be contrary to what the Church teaches in the matter of inspiration, so long as the redactor had preserved intact and absolutely unaltered the inspired meaning of the Sacred Text. The Biblical Commission (1 May, 1910) will not allow that our present redaction contains many Machabean psalms; nor will Drive, Delitzsch, Perowne, Renan, and many other critical scholars. “Had so many psalms dated from this age, it is difficult not to think that they would have borne more prominent marks of it in their diction and style” (Driver, “Introduction to their Literature of the Old Testament”, New York, 1892, 365). Pss. xliv, lxxiv, lxxix, and lxxxiii, which Delitzsch and Perowne on historical grounds admit to be Machabean, occasion to Davison (Hastings, “Dict. of the Bible”, IV, 152) “unquestionable difficulties arising from their place in the second and third books”. There are no certain proofs that these or any psalms are Machabean. The Biblical Commission does not, on this account, deny any of the psalms are Machabean; it leaves that question still open. In the matter of redaction, it allows that “for liturgical or musical or other unknown reasons, psalms may have been split up or joined together” in course of time; and that “there are other psalms, like the Miserere mei, Deus [Ps. li], which, in order that they might be better fitted to the historical circumstances and the solemnities of the Jewish people, were slightly re-edited and changed by the omission or addition of a verse or two, so long as the inspiration of the entire text remains intact”. That is the important thing; the doctrine of the inspiration of Holy Writ must not suffer in the least. How, then, is the doctrine of the inspiration of the entire text kept intact? Were the previous redactors inspired? Nothing has been determined by any authority of the Church in these matters. We incline to the opinion that God inspired the meanings of the Psalms as originally written, and in like manner inspired every redactor who gathered and edited these songs of Israel until the last inspired redactor set them together in their present form.
V. TEXT
The Psalms were originally written in Hebrew letters, such as we see only on coins and in a few lapidary inscriptions; the text has come down to us in square Aramaic letters. Only the versions give us any idea of the pre-Massoretic text. Thus far no pre-Massoretic MS. of the Psalms has been discovered. The Massoretic text has been preserved in more than 3400 MSS., of which none is earlier than the ninth century and only nine or ten are earlier than the twelfth (see MANUSCRIPTS OF THE BIBLE). These Massoretic MSS. represent two slightly variant families of one tradition — the texts of Ben Asher and of Ben Naftali. Their variations are of little moment in the interpretation of the Psalms. The study of the rhythmic structure of the Psalms, together with the variations between Massorah and the versions, have made it clear that our Hebrew text is far from perfect, and that its points are often wrong. The efforts of critics to perfect the text are at times due to no more than a shrewd surmise. The metrical mould is chosen; then the psalm is forcibly adapted to it. It were better to leave the text in its imperfect condition than to render it worse by guess-work. The decree of the Biblical Commission is aimed at those to whom the imperfections in the Massoretic Text are an occasion, though no excuse, for countless conjectural emendations, at times wild and fanciful, which nowadays pass current as critical exegesis of the Psalms.
VI. VERSIONS
A. GREEK
The chief version of the Psalms is the Septuagint. It is preserved to us in Cod. U, Brit. Mus. Pap. 37, seventh century, containing Pss. x-xxxiii; Leipzig Pap., fourth century, containing Pss. xxix-liv; , Cod. Sinaiticus, fourth century, complete; B. Cod. Vaticanus, fourth century, complete, except, Pss. cv, 27-cxxxvii, 6; A, Cod. Alexandrinus, fifth century, complete except Pss. xlix, 19-lxxvi, 10; I, Cod. Bodleianus, ninth century, complete; and in many other later MSS. The Septuagint Version is of great value in the exegesis of the Psalms. It provides pre-Massoretic readings which are clearly preferable to those of the Massoretes. It brings us back to a text at least of the second century B.C. In spite of a seeming servility to words and to Hebrew constructions, a servility that probably existed in the Alexandrian Greek of the Jews of the period, the Septuagint translator of psalms shows an excellent knowledge of Hebrew, and fears not to depart from the letter and to give the meaning of his original. The second-century A.D. Greek versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion are extant in only a few fragments; these fragments are witnesses to a text pretty much the same as our Massoretic.
B. LATIN
About the middle of the second century the Septuagint Psalter was translated into Latin. Of this Old Latin, or Itala, Version we have only a few MSS. and the citations by the early Latin Fathers. At the request of Pope St. Damasus I, A.D. 383, St. Jerome revised the Itala and brought it back closer to the Septuagint. His revision was soon so distorted that he complained, “plus antiquum errorem quam novam emendationem valere” (P.L., XXIX, 117). This is St. Jerome’s “Roman Psalter”; it is used in the recitation of the Office in St. Peter’s, Rome, and in the Missal. The corruption of his first translation led St. Jerome to undertake an entirely new translation of the Hexapla edition of the Septuagint. He worked with great care, in Bethlehem, some time before A.D. 392. He indicated by asterisks the parts of the Hebrew text which had been omitted by the Septuagint and were borrowed by him from Theodotion; he marked with the obelus () the parts of the Septuagint which were not in the Hebrew. These critical marks came in course of time to be utterly neglected. This translation is the “Gallican Psalter”; it is part of the Vulgate. A third Latin translation of the Psalms, made from the Hebrew Text, with Origen’s Hexapla and the other ancient versions in view, was completed by St. Jerome about the end of the fourth century at Bethlehem. This version is of great worth in the study of the Psalter. Dr. Briggs says: “Where it differs from H. and G., its evidence is especially valuable as giving the opinion of the best Biblical scholar of ancient times as to the original text, based on the use of a wealth of critical material vastly greater than that in the possession of any other critic, earlier or later” (p. xxxii).
OTHER VERSIONS
For other translations, see VERSIONS OF THE BIBLE; RHYMED BIBLES.
VII. POETIC FORM
A. PARALLELISM
Parallelism (q. v.) is the principle of balance which is admitted by all to be the most characteristic and essential feature of the poetic form of the Psalms. By synonymous, synthetic, antithetic, emblematic, stair-like, or introverted parallelism, thought is balanced with thought, line with line, couplet with couplet, strophe with antistrophe, in the lyric upbuilding of the poetic picture or imprecation or exhortation.
B. METRE
Is there metre in the Psalms? The Jews of the first century A.D. thought so. Flavius Josephus speaks of the hexameters of Moses (Antiq., II, xvi, 4; IV, viii, 44) and the trimeters and tetrameters and manifold meters of the odes and hymns of David (Antiq., VII, xii, 3). Philo says that Moses had learned the “theory of rhythm and harmony” (De vita Mosis, I, 5). Early Christian writers voice the same opinion. Origen (d. 254) says the Psalms are in trimeters and tetrameters (In Ps. cxviii; cf. Card. Pitra, “Analecta Sacra”, II, 341); and Eusebius (d. 340), in his “De Praeparatione evangelica”, XI, 5 (P.G., XXI, 852), speaks of the same metres of David. St. Jerome (420), in “Praef. ad Eusebii chronicon” (P.L., XXVII, 36), finds iambics, Alcaics, and Sapphics in the psalter; and, writing to Paula (P.L., XXII, 442), he explains that the acrostic Pss. cxi and cxii (cx and cxi) are made up of iambic trimeters, whereas the acrostic Pss. cxix and cxlv (cxviii and cxliv) are iambic tetrameters. Modern exegetes do not agree in this matter. For a time many would admit no metre at all in the Psalms. Davison (Hast., “Dict. of the Bible”, s. v.) writes: “though metre is not discernible in the Psalms, it does not follow that rhythm is excluded”. This rhythm, however, “defies analysis and systematization”. Driver (“Introd. to Lit. of O. T.”, New York, 1892, 339) admits in Hebrew poetry “no metre in the strict sense of the term”. Exegetes who find metre in the Psalms are of four schools, according as they explain Hebrew metre by quantity, by the number of syllables, by accent, or by both quantity and accent.
(1) Defenders of the Latin and Greek metrical standard of quantity as applied to Hebrew poetry are Francis Gomarus, in “Davidis lyra”, II (Lyons, 1637), 313; Mark Meibom, in “Davidis psalmi X” (Amsterdam, 1690) and in two other works, who claim to have learned his system of Hebrew metre by Divine revelation; William Jones, “Poeseos Asiaticae commentariorum” (Leipzig, 1777), who tried to force Hebrew words into Arabic metres.
(2) The number of syllables was taken as the standard of metre by Hare, “Psalmorum liber in versiculos metrice divisus” (London, 1736); he made all feet dissyllabic, the metre trochaic in a line of an even number of syllables, iambic in a line of an odd number of syllables. The Massoretic system was rejected, the Syriac put in its stead. The opinion found chief defence in the writings of the learned Innsbruck Professor Gustav; and in Bickell’s “Metrices biblicae” (Innsbruck, 1879), “Suplementum ad Metr. Bibl.” (Innsbruck), “Carimina veteris testamenti metrice” (1882), “Dichtungen der Hebraer” (1882-84). Gerard Gietmann, S. J., “De re mentrica Hebraeorum” (Freiburg im Br., 1880); A. Rohling, “Das Solomonische Spruchbuch” (Mainz, 1879); H. Lesetre, “Le livre des psaumes” (Paris, 1883); J. Knabenbauer, S. J., in “Job” (Paris, 1885), p. 18; F. Vigouroux, “Manuel biblique”, II, 203, have all followed in Bickell’s footsteps more or less closely. Against this system some patent facts. The quantity of a word is made to vary arbitrarily. Hebrew is treated as Syriac, a late dialect of Aramaic — which it is not; in fact, even early Syriac poetry did not measure its lines by the number of syllables. Lastly the Massorah noted metrical structure by accents; at least soph pasuk and athnah indicate comlete lines or two hemistichs.
(3) Accent is the determining principle of Hebrew metre according to C. A. Anton, “Conjectura de metro Hebraeorum” (Leipzig, 1770), “Vindiciae disput. de metr. Hebr.” (Leipzig, 1771), “Specimen editionis psalmorum” (Vitebsk, 1780); Leutwein, “Versuch einer richtigen Theorie von der biblischen Verkunst” (1775); Ernst Meier, “Die Form der hebraischen Poesie nachgewiesen” (Tubingen, 1853); Julius Ley, “Die Metrischen Formen der hebraischen Poesie” (Leipzig, 1886); “Ueber die Alliteration im Hebraischen” in “Zeitsch. d. Deutsch. Morgenlandisch. Ges.”, XX, 180; J. K. Zenner, S. J., “Die Chorgesange im Buche der Psalmen” (Freiburg im Br., 1896), and in many contributions to “Zeitsch. fur kathol. Theol.”, 1891, 690; 1895, 373; 1896, 168, 369, 378, 571, 754; Hontheim, S. J., in “Zeitsch. fur kathol. Theol.”, 1897, 338, 560, 738; 1898, 172, 404, 749; 1899, 167; Dr. C. A. Briggs, in “The Book of Psalms”, in “International Critical Commentary” (New York, 1906), p. xxxix, and in many other publications therein enumerated; Francis Brown, “Measures of Hebrew Poetry: in “Journal of Biblical Literature”, IX, 91; C. H. Toy, “Proverbs” in “Internat. Crit. Comm.” (1899); W. R. Harper, “Amos and Hosea” in “Internat. Crit. Comm.” (1905); Cheyne, “Psalms” (New York), 1892; Duhm, “Die Psalmen” (Freiburg im Br., 1899), p. xxx. This theory is the best working hypothesis together with the all-essential principle of parallelism; it does far less violence to the Massoretic Text than either of the foregoing theories. It does not force the Massoretic syllables into grooves that are Latin, Greek, Arabic, or Aramaic. It is independent of the shifting of accent; and postulates just one thing, a fixed and harmonious number of accents to the line, regardless of the number of syllables therein. This theory of a tonic and not a syllabic metre has this, too, in its favour that accent is the determining principle in ancient Egyptian, Babylonian, and Assyrian poetry.
(4) Of recent years the pendulum of Hebrew metrical theories has swung back upon quantity; the syllabic must not be utterly neglected. Hubert Grimme, in “Grundzuge der Hebraischen Akzent und Volkallehre”, Freiburg, 1896, and “Psalmenprobleme” (1902), builds up the metre chiefly upon the tonic principle, at the same time taking into account the morae or pauses due to quantity. Schlogl, “De re metrica veterum Hebraeorum” (Vienna, 1899), defends Grimme’s theory. Sievers, “Metrische Studien” (1901), also takes in the unaccented syllables for metrical consideration; so does Baethgen, “Die Psalmen” (Gottingen, 1904), p. xxvii.
C. OTHER CHARACTERISTICS
Alliteration and assonance are frequent. Acrostic or alphabetic psalms are ix-x, xxv, xxxiv, xxxvii, cxi, cxii, cxix, cxlv (ix, xxiv, xxxiii, xxxvi, cx, cxi, cxviii, cxliv). The letters of the alphabet begin successive lines, couplets, or strophes. In Ps. cxix (cxviii) the same letter begins eight successive lines in each of the twenty-two alphabetic strophes. In Pss. xiii, xxix, lxii, cxlviii, and cl (xii, xxviii, lxi, cxlvii, and cxlix) the same word or words are repeated many times. Rhymes, by repetition of the same suffix, are in Pss. ii, xiii, xxvii, xxx, liv, lv, cxlii, etc. (ii, xii, xxvi, xxix, liii, liv, cxli, etc.); these rhymes occur at the ends of lines and in caesural pauses. Lines were grouped into strophes and antistrophes, commonly in pairs and triplets, rarely in greater multiples; at times an independent strophe, like the epode of the Greek chorus, was used between one or more strophes and the corresponding antistrophes. The word Selah () almost invariably marks the end of a strophe. The meaning of this word and its purpose is still a moot question. We think it was originally (from , “to throw”), and meant “a throwing down”, “a prostration”. During the antiphonal cantilation of the Psalms, the priests blew their trumpets to mark the end of a strophe, and at the signal the two choirs or the people or both choirs and people prostrated themselves (cf. Haupt, “Expository Times”, May, 1911). The principle of parallelism determined these stophic arrangements of the lines. Koster, in “die Psalmen nach ihrer strophischen Anordnung” (1837), distinguishes various kinds of parallelism in lines and half-lines, synonymous, antithetical, synthetic, identical, introverted. Zenner, S. J., in his “Chorgesange im Buche der Psalmen” (Freiburg im Br., 1896) has very cleverly arranged many of the psalms as choral odes, chanted by two or three choirs. Hermann Wiesmann, S. J., in “Die Psalmen nach dem Urtext” (Munster, 1906), has applied the metrical principles of Zenner, and revised and published the latter’s translations and studies of the Psalms. This work takes too great liberty with the Sacred Text, and has lately (1911) been put on the Index.
VIII. POETIC BEAUTY
The extravagant words of Lamartine in “Voyage en Orient” are classic: “Lisez de l’Horace ou du Pindare apres un Psaume! Pour moi, je ne le peux plus”. One wonders whether Lamartine ever read a psalm in the original. To criticise the Psalms as literature is very difficult. Their text has reached us with many losses in the matter of poetic form. The authors varied much in style. Their literary beauty should not be judged by comparison with the poetry of Horace and Pindar. It is with the hymns of ancient Egypt, Babylon, and Assyria that we should compare the songs of Israel. Those ancient hymns are crude and rude by the side of the Psalms. Even the imprecatory Pss. xviii, xxxv, lii, lix, lxix, cix, cxxxvii (xvii, xxxiv, li, lviii, lxviii, cviii, cxxxvi), those national anthems so full of love of Israel and almost startling in their hatred of the foes of Jahweh and of Israel, if read from the viewpoint of the writers, are sublime, vivid, glowing, enthusiastic, though exaggerated, poetic outbursts, instances of a “higher seriousness and a higher truthfulness”, such as Aristotle never would have found ina song of Babylonia or of Sumeria. Whether their tones are those of praise or blame, of sorrow or of joy, of humiliation or of exaltation, of deep meditation or of didactic dogmatism, ever and everywhere the writers of the Psalms are dignified and grand, true to the ideals of Jahweh’s chosen folk, spiritual and devotional. The range of thought is immense. It takes in Jahweh, His temple, cult, priests, creation; man, friend and foe; beasts, birds; all nature, animate and inanimate. The range of emotions is complete; every emotion of man that is pure and noble has been set to words in the Psalms. As an instance of poetic beauty, we subjoin the famous Ps. xxiii (xxii), translated from the Hebrew. The poet first speaks in his own person, then in the guise of the sheep. The repetition of the first couplet as an envoi is suggested by Zenner and many commentators, to complete the envelope-form of the poem, or the introverted parallelism of the strophic structure: The Poet:
1. Jahweh is my Shepherd; I have no want,
The Sheep:
2. In pastures of tender grass he setteth me; Unto still waters he leadeth me; 3. He turneth me back again; He guideth me along right paths for his Own name’s sake. 4. Yea, though I walk through the vale of The shadow of death, I fear no harm; For thou art with me; Thy bludgeon and they staff, they stay me. 5. Thou settest food before me, In the presence of my foes; Thou has anointed my head with oil; My trough runneth over.
The Poet:
6. Ah, goodness and mercy have followed me All the days of my life, I will go back to the house of Jahweh Even for the length of my days. Jahweh is my Shepherd; I have no want!
IX. THEOLOGICAL VALUE
The theological ideas of the Psalms are comprehensive; the existence and attributes of God, the soul’s yearning for immortality, the economy of grace and the virtues, death, judgement, heaven, hell, hope of resurrection and of glory, fear of punishment — all the main dogmatic truths of Israel’s faith appear again and again in her Psalter. These truths are set down not in dogmatic form, but now in the simple and childlike lyric yearning of the ingenuous soul, again in the loftiest and most vehement outbursts of which man’s nature is capable. The Psalms are at once most human and most superhuman; they sink to the lowest depths of the human heart and soar to the topmost heights of Divine contemplation. So very human are the imprecatory psalms as to make some to wonder how they can have been inspired of God. Surely Jahweh cannot have inspired the singer who prayed: “As for them that plan my soul to destroy, Down to the depths of the earth shall they go; To the grasp of the sword shall they be delivered; A prey to the jackals shall they become”. — Psalm 83:10-11 (82:10-11) Such an objection is based upon a misunderstanding. The perfection of the counsels of Christ is one thing, the aim of the good Levite is quite another thing. The ideals of the Sermon on the Mount are of higher spirituality than are the ideals of the imprecatory psalm. Yet the ideals of the imprecatory psalm are not bad — nay, are good, are Divine in their origin and authority. The imprecatory psalms are national anthems; they express a nation’s wrath, not an individual’s. Humility and meekness and forgiveness of foe are virtues in an individual; not necessarily so of a nation; by no means so of the Chosen Nation of Jahweh, the people who knew by revelation that Jahweh willed they should be a great nation and should put out their enemies from the land which he gave them. Their great national love for their own people postulated a great national love for Jahweh. The love for Jahweh postulated a hatred of the foes of Jahweh, and, in the theocratic economy of the Jewish folk, the foes of Jahweh were the foes of Israel. If we bear this national purpose in mind, and forget not that all poetry, and especially Semitic poetry, is highly coloured and exaggerated, we shall not be shocked at the lack of mercy in the writers of the imprecatory psalms.
The chief theological ideas of the Psalms are those that have regard to the Incarnation. Are there Messianic psalms? Unaided by the authentic interpreting power of the Church and neglectful of the consensus of the Fathers, Protestants have quite generally come to look upon the Psalms as non-Messianic either in literal or in typical meaning; the older Messianic interpretation is discarded as worn-out and threadbare. Delitzsch admits only Ps. cx (cix) to be Messianic in its literal meaning. Cheyne denies both literal and typical Messianic meaning to the Psalms (“Origin of Ps.”, 339). Davison (Hast., loc. cit.) says, “it may well be that the Psalter contains hardly a single instance of direct Messianic prophecy”. Catholics have ever held that some of the Psalms are Messianic in meaning, either literal or typical. (Cf. articles INCARNATION; JESUS CHRIST; MESSIAS.) The New Testament clearly refers certain psalms to the Messias. The Fathers are unanimous in interpreting many psalms as prophecies of the coming, kingdom, priesthood, passion, death, and resurrection of the Messias. The coming of the Messias is predicted in Pss. xviii, l, lxviii, xcvi-xcviii (xvii, xlix, lxvii, xcv-xcvii). St. Paul (eph., iv, 8) interprets of Christ’s ascent into heaven the words of Ps. lxviii, 18, description of Jahweh’s ascent after conquering the world. The kingdom of the Messias is predicted in Pss. ii, xviii, xx, xxi, xlv, lxi, lxxii, lxxxix, cx, cxxxii (ii, xvii, xix, xx, xliv, lx, lxxi, lxxxviii, cix, cxxxi); the priesthood in Ps. cx. The passion and death of the Messias are clear in the sufferings of the Servant of Jahweh of Pss. xxii, xl, lxix (xxi, xxxix, lxviii). Ps. xxii was used in part, perhaps entirely, by Christ on the Cross; the Psalmist describes as his own the emotions and sufferings of the Messias. Hence it is that the Biblical Commission (1 May, 1910) rejects the opinion of those who do away with the Messianic and prophetic character of the Psalms and refer only to the future lot of the Chosen People those words which are prophecies concerning Christ. Cf. Maas, “Christ in Type and Prophecy” (New York, 1893).
X. LITURGICAL USE
A. — The use of the Psalms in Jewish liturgy has been spoken of. Cf. also articles SYNAGOGUE; TEMPLE. —
B. — Christian liturgical use of the Psalter dates from the time of Christ and His Apostles. He recited the Hallels at the last Passover, Pss. cxiii-cxiv before the Last Supper, Pss. cxv-cxviii thereafter; Ps. xxii was His dying words; authoritative citations of other psalms appear in His discourses and those of His Apostles (cf. Luke 20:42; 24:44; Acts 1:20). The Apostles used the Psalms in worship (cf. Acts 16:25; James 5:14; 1 Corinthians 14:26). The earliest liturgical service was taken from the Psalter. St. Paul represents the Ephesian Christians, to all seeming, psalmodizing, one choir answering the other; “Speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and psalmodizing [psallontes] in your hearts to the Lord, giving thanks [eucharistountes] always for all things” (Ephesians 5:19). Probably the Eucharistic agape is referred to. A like reference is in Col., iii, 16. St. Basil (P.G., XXXII, 764) speaks of this psalmodizing in two choirs — antipsallein allelois. The custom of psalmody, or antiphonal singing, is said to have been introduced into the Church of Antioch by St. Ignatius (Socrates, “Hist. Eccl.”, VI, viii). From Syria, this custom of the Synagogue would seem to have passed over to Palestine and Egypt, to Asia Minor, Constantinople, and the West. St. Ambrose was the first to inaugurate in the West the chanting of the Psalms by two choirs (cf. Batiffol, “Histoire du breviaire romain”, 1893). In the Proprium de tempore of the Roman Rite, all the Psalms are chanted at least once a week, some twice and oftener. In Matins and Lauds, according to the Vulgate’s numeration, are Pss. i-cx, excepting a few that are fixed for Prime and other hours; in Vespers are Pss. cxi-cxlvii, excepting a few fixed for other hours. The great alphabetic praise of the Law, Ps. cxviii, is distributed between Prime, Terce, Sext, and None. The Benedictines, Franciscans, Carmelites, and Dominicans, who have their own rite, all chant the Psalter once a week; the Jesuits follow the Roman ritual.
In the Latin Rite, Pss. vi, xxxi, xxxvii, l, ci, cxxix, cxlii (Douai) have long been recited, in the above order, as prayers of sorrow for sin; they are lyric cries of the sorrowing soul and have hence been called the “Penitential Psalms”. Their recitation during Lent was ordered by Innocent III (1198-1216). Pius V (1566-72) established the custom, now no longer of general obligation, whereby these psalms became a part of the Friday ferial Office of Lent.
The Ambrosian Rite, still used in Milan cathedral, distributes the Psalms over two weeks. The Oriental Rites in union with Rome (Melchite, Maronite, Syriac, Chaldean, Coptic, AEthiopic, etc.), together with the heretical Oriental Churches, all keep up the recitation of the Psalter as their Divine Office.
———————————–
The bibliography of the Psalms is naturally enormous and can be given only in small part.
Greek Fathers: ORIGEN, Selecta in Psalmos in P.G., XII. 1043; IDEM, Homiliae in Psalmos in P.G., XII, 1319; IDEM, Originis Hexaplorum quae supersunt, ed. FIELD; EUSEBIUS, Comm. in Psalmos in P.G., XXIII, 65; XXIV, 9; ST. ATHANASIUS, Epist. Ad Marcellinum in P.G., XXVII, 11; IDEM, Exegeses in Psalmos in P.G., XXVII, 55; IDEM, De Titulis Psalmorum in P.G., XXVII, 645; ST. BASIL, Homiliae in Pss. in P.G., XXIX, 209; ST. DIDYMUS OF ALEXANDRIA in P.G., XXIX, 1155; ST. GREGORY OF NYSSA in P.G., XLIV, 431, 608; ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM in P.G., LV, 35, 527; ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA in P.G., LXIX, 699; THEODORETUS in P.G., LXXX, 857.
Latin Fathers: ST. AMBROSE, Enarrationes in XII Psalmos in P.L., XIV, 921; ST. JEROME, Liber Psalmorum juxta hebraicam veritatem in P.L., XXVIII, 1123; IDEM, Excerpta de Psalterio (Maredsous, 1895); IDEM, Epistolae in P.L., XXII, 433, 441, 837; IDEM, Breviarium in Psalmos in P.L., XXVI, 821; ST. AUGUSTINE, Enarrationes in Pss. in P.L., XXXVII, 67; IDEM, Expositio in Pss. C-CL in P.L., LI, 277; CASSIODORIUS in P.L., LXX, 9.
Commentators of the Middle Ages: BEDE, PETER LOMBARD, ST. THOMAS, ST. BONAVENTURE and others of the Middle Ages depend chiefly upon the Fathers for their interpretations. NICHOLAS OF LYRA, in his Postilla, and the converted Jew, PAUL, ARCHBISHOP OF BURGOS, in his Additions to the Postilla, gives us much of rabbinic interpretation.
Moderns: BELLARMINE, Explanatio in Psalmos (1611), was by far the best commentator on the Psalms till recent times, as he used scientific methods in textual criticism; SCHEGG, Die Psalmen (Munich, 1845); ROHLING (1871); THALHOFER (Ratisbon, 1904); WOLTER, Psallite Sapienter (Freiburg im Br., 1904); BICKELL, Der Psalter (1884); VAN STEENKISTE (1870); PATRIZI, Cento Salmi tradotti e commentati (1875); MINOCHI, I Salmi tradotti del Testo Ebreo (1895); LE HIR, Les Psaumes traduits de l’hebreu en latin avec la Vulgate en regard (Paris, 1876); LESETRE (Paris, 1883); FILLION, Les Psaumes commentes selon la Vulgate et l’Hebreu (Paris, 1893); CRAMPTON (1889); PANNIER (1908); ZENNER-WIESMANN, Die Psalmen nach dem Urtext (Munster, 1906); NIGLUTSCH (Trent, 1905); EATON, Sing ye to the Lord (London, 1909); HOBERG, Die Psalmen nach der Vulgata (Freiburg, 1892); M’SWINEY, Psalms and Canticles (St. Louis, 1901).
Protestants: the commentaries of DE WETTE (1811-56); HITZIG (1863-65); OLSHAUSEN (1853); HUPFELD (1855-88); EWALD (1839-66); DELITZSCH (1895); DUHM (Freiburg im Br., 1899); BAETHGEN (Gottingen, 1904); CHEYNE (New York, 1892); International Critical Commentary, ed. BRIGGS (New York, 1907), the best of non-Catholic commentators on the Psalms; KIRKPATRICK in Cambridge Bible (1893-95).
WALTER DRUM Transcribed by Thomas M. Barrett Dedicated to the memory of Rev. A.J. Maas, S.J.
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIICopyright © 1911 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat, June 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., CensorImprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York
Fuente: Catholic Encyclopedia
Psalms
The psalms are the production of various authors. “Only a portion of the Book of Psalms claims David as its author. Other inspired poets in successive generations added now one now another contribution to the sacred collection, and thus in the wisdom of Providence it more completely reflects every phase of human emotion and circumstances than it otherwise could.” But it is specially to David and his contemporaries that we owe this precious book. In the “titles” of the psalms, the genuineness of which there is no sufficient reason to doubt, 73 are ascribed to David. Peter and John (Acts 4:25) ascribe to him also the second psalm, which is one of the 48 that are anonymous. About two-thirds of the whole collection have been ascribed to David.
Psalms 39, 62, and 77 are addressed to Jeduthun, to be sung after his manner or in his choir. Psalms 50 and 73-83 are addressed to Asaph, as the master of his choir, to be sung in the worship of God. The “sons of Korah,” who formed a leading part of the Kohathite singers (2 Chr. 20:19), were intrusted with the arranging and singing of Ps. 42, 44-49, 84, 85, 87, and 88.
In Luke 24:44 the word “psalms” means the Hagiographa, i.e., the holy writings, one of the sections into which the Jews divided the Old Testament. (See BIBLE)
None of the psalms can be proved to have been of a later date than the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, hence the whole collection extends over a period of about 1,000 years. There are in the New Testament 116 direct quotations from the Psalter.
The Psalter is divided, after the analogy of the Pentateuch, into five books, each closing with a doxology or benediction:
(1.) The first book comprises the first 41 psalms, all of which are ascribed to David except 1, 2, 10, and 33, which, though anonymous, may also be ascribed to him.
(2.) Book second consists of the next 31 psalms (42-72), 18 of which are ascribed to David and 1 to Solomon (the 72nd). The rest are anonymous.
(3.) The third book contains 17 psalms (73-89), of which the 86th is ascribed to David, the 88th to Heman the Ezrahite, and the 89th to Ethan the Ezrahite.
(4.) The fourth book also contains 17 psalms (90-106), of which the 90th is ascribed to Moses, and the 101st and 103rd to David.
(5.) The fifth book contains the remaining psalms, 44 in number. Of these, 15 are ascribed to David, and the 127th to Solomon.
Ps. 136 is generally called “the great hallel.” But the Talmud includes also Ps. 120-135. Ps. 113-118, inclusive, constitute the “hallel” recited at the three great feasts, at the new moon, and on the eight days of the feast of dedication.
“It is presumed that these several collections were made at times of high religious life: the first, probably, near the close of David’s life; the second in the days of Solomon; the third by the singers of Jehoshaphat (2 Chr. 20:19); the fourth by the men of Hezekiah (29, 30, 31); and the fifth in the days of Ezra.”
The Mosaic ritual makes no provision for the service of song in the worship of God. David first taught the Church to sing the praises of the Lord. He first introduced into the ritual of the tabernacle music and song.
Divers names are given to the psalms. (1.) Some bear the Hebrew designation _shir_ (Gr. ode, a song). Thirteen have this title. It means the flow of speech, as it were, in a straight line or in a regular strain. This title includes secular as well as sacred song.
(2.) Fifty-eight psalms bear the designation (Heb.) _mitsmor_ (Gr. psalmos, a psalm), a lyric ode, or a song set to music; a sacred song accompanied with a musical instrument.
(3.) Ps. 145, and many others, have the designation (Heb.) _tehillah_ (Gr. hymnos, a hymn), meaning a song of praise; a song the prominent thought of which is the praise of God.
(4.) Six psalms (16, 56-60) have the title (Heb.) _michtam_ (q.v.).
(5.) Ps. 7 and Hab. 3 bear the title (Heb.) _shiggaion_ (q.v.).
Fuente: Easton’s Bible Dictionary
Psalms
(See DAVID; POETRY.) The Hebrew designation tehillim, “praises” or hymns,” occurring only in the title of Psalm 145 and about 30 times in the body of the Psalms, applies only to some not to all the psalms. The glorification of God is the design of them all, even the penitentiary and precatory psalms; but tehilliym applies strictly to praise songs alone, tephillowt to the prayer songs; Psalm 17; Psalm 72 end, closing the second book of Psalms, Psalm 86; 90; 102 title. No one Hebrew title comprehends all.
The Greek Septuagint has given the title “Psalms” (from psalloo “to play an instrument”) applied to the whole collection. The Hebrew mizmor designates 65 psalms; in the Syriac version it comprises the whole (from zaamar “to decorate”), psalms of artificial, adorned structure (Hengstenberg). “A rhythmical composition” (Lowth). “Psalms,” the designation most applicable to the whole book, means songs accompanied by an instrument, especially the harp (1Ch 16:4-9; 2Ch 5:12-13). Shir, “a joyful thanksgiving song,” is prefixed only to some. The various kinds are specified in Eph 5:19; “psalms (accompanied by an instrument), hymns (indirect praise of God), … spiritual songs (joyous lyric pieces; contrast Amo 8:10).”
TITLES. Their genuineness is confirmed by their antiquity (which is proved by their being unintelligible to the Septuagint translators of the Hebrew into Greek), and by their presence in the greatest number of manuscripts, and in fragments of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion. Their obscurity and occasional want of connection with the psalm’s contents (as title Psalm 34) are incompatible with their origination from forgers. The orientals, moreover, usually prefix titles to poems (Hab 3:1; Isa 38:9); so David (2Sa 23:1). The enigmatical titles, found only in the psalms of David and of David’s singers, accord with Eastern taste. They are too “poetical, spirited, and profound for any later collector” (Hengstenberg). So David’s “bow song” (2Sa 1:18), his enigmatical designation for “the song on him expert with the bow” (2Sa 1:22).
The historical hints in some titles give a clue to the dates. If the titles were added by later hands, how is it that they are wanting in those psalms where conjecture could most easily have had place, namely, the non-Davidic psalms of the fourth and fifth books, whereas they appear in the most regular and complete form in David’s psalms, next in those of his singers? Now these are just the ones where conjecture is given no room for exercise; for the titles do not apparently illustrate these psalms, but are a memorial of the events which most deeply impressed David’s own mind. In the last two books the historical occasions do not occur in the titles, because cycles of psalms mainly compose these books, and among such cycles psalms of an individual reference hardly have place.
DIVISIONS. Davidic basis of the whole. The Psalms form one “book”; so the Lord refers to them (Luk 20:42), so His apostles (Act 1:20). The fathers, Ambrose (on Psalm 40) and Jerome to Cyprian (2:695), describe the Psalms as five books in one volume. Based on and corresponding to the historical Pentateuch, they form a poetical “Pentateuch” (Epiphanius, de Mens., c. 5), extending from Moses to the times of Malachi “the Hebrew history set to music an oratorio in five parts, with Messiah for its subject” (Wordsworth). The Psalms, like the Pentateuch, being used in divine worship, are the people’s answer to God’s address to them in the law, i.e. the expression of their pious feelings called forth by the word of God. The close of each of the five books is marked by a doxology. The “blessed be the Lord God of Israel” is taken up by Zacharias, as fulfilled in Christ (Lev 1:68-71; Psa 106:48). Book I includes Psalm 1-41; Book II, Psalm 42-72; Book III, Psalm 73-89; Book IV, Psalm 90-106; Book V, Psalm 107-150.
Book I is according to the titles Davidic; accordingly there is no trace of any author hut David. The objection from the “temple” (Psa 5:7) being mentioned is groundless, for in 1Sa 1:9; 1Sa 3:3, it is similarly used for the tabernacle long before Solomon’s temple was built. The argument for a post-Babylonian date from the phrase “bring back the captivity” (Psa 14:7) is invalid; it is a Hebraism for reversing one’s misfortunes (Job 42:10). Nor does the acrosticism in Psalm 25 prove a late date, for acrosticism appears in psalms acknowledged to be David’s (Psalm 9). In Books II and III David’s singers have borrowed from David (excepting “a song of the beloved” Psalm 45, and Psalm 46, “upon Alamoth”) everything peculiar in his superscriptions; see Psalm 42; 43; 44; 84; 86. “Selah” is restricted to David and his singers; but “hallelujah” is never found in his or their psalms.
So also “to the chief musician,” (committing the psalm to the music conductor to prepare for musical performance in the public service: 1Ch 15:21 Hebrew and margin, compare 1Ch 15:22,) is limited to David’s and their psalms. The writer of 2 Samuel 22 evidently turned into prose David’s poetical superscription (Psalm 18); so the writer of 1Sa 19:11; 1Sa 21:13-14; 1Sa 23:19, had before him the titles of Psalm 34; 54; 59. Hezekiah’s “writing” (miktab) alludes probably to David’s miktam (a “secret,” or “song of deep import”), Psalm 56; 57 titles, for it was he who restored David’s psalms to their liturgical use in the temple (2Ch 29:30). This imitation of David’s title, and still more the correspondence of his prayer to David’s psalms (Psa 102:24; Psa 27:13; Psa 49:1; Psa 6:5; Psa 30:9), is a presumption for the authenticity of David’s and his singers’ psalms and their titles.
Habakkuk similarly leans upon David’s superscriptions, as also upon his psalms. Hab 3:1, “Shiggaion,” compare title Psa 7:1, “Son of David”; Hab 3:19, “to the chief musician on my stringed instruments” is derived from the titles Psalm 4; 6. So the “Selah” (Psa 6:9; Psa 6:13) which occurs only in the psalms of David and his singers. The absence of the authors’ names from most of the psalms in the fourth and fifth books implies that none of them have an individual and personal character, as the Davidic psalms have. In all such the psalmist represents the community. The later groups of psalms rest on the Davidic, and echo the poetry of David. Even in the psalms of David’s singers, the authors, except Asaph (Psalm 1; 74) who was immediately associated with David, do not give their individual names.
PRINCIPLE OF SELECTION. Not all Israel’s lyric poetry but only.
(1) such as is directly religious is included in the psalter, therefore not David’s dirge over Saul and Jonathan (2Sa 1:17-27). Also
(2) only the psalms applicable to the whole church and therefore suited to the public services of the sanctuary. The individual psalmist represents the religious community whose mouthpiece he is. 2Sa 23:1; David sings in his typical and representative character; no other psalmist in the book has personal references. Hence Hezekiah’s prayer (Isaiah 38) and Jonah’s thanksgiving are excluded as too personal.
(3) Only such as were composed trader the Holy Spirit’s inspiration. The very musicians who founded the sacred music were inspired (1Ch 25:1, “prophesy with harps”), much more the psalmists themselves. Asaph, the writer of some psalms, was a “seer” (2Ch 29:30).
David spoke “in the Spirit.” Christ testifies (Mat 22:41-46), He classes” the Psalms,” the chief book of the chetubim or hagiographa, with “the law and the prophets” (Luk 24:44). The Messianic prophetic element in David leans on Nathan’s prophecy (2 Samuel 7). Subsequent prophets develop David’s Messianic predictions. The Psalms draw out of the typical ceremonial of the law its tuner spirit, adapting it to the various requirements of the individual and the congregation. By their help the Israelite could enter into the living spirit of the law, and realizing his need of the promised Saviour look for Him of whom the Psalms testify. They are a treasury from which we can draw the inner experiences of Old Testament saints and express our corresponding feelings, under like circumstances, in their divinely sanctioned language of praise and prayer.
CLASSIFICATION.
(1) Psalms of joy and gratitude, shir, lethodah “for confession” or ascription of praise (Psalm 100), tehillah (Psalm 145).
(2) Psalms under sorrow, giving birth to prayer: tephillah, “prayer song” (Psalm 90), lehazkir “to put God in remembrance” of His people’s needs (Psalm 38; 70), leanot “concerning the affliction” (Psalm 88), altaseheeth “destroy not” (Psalm 57; 58; 59).
(3) Didactic and calmly meditative: Psalm 1; 15; 31; 49. The title Maschil is absent from some didactic psalms and present in others, because its design is to mark as didactic only those in which the “instruction” is covert and so might be overlooked. Thirteen are so designated, mostly of David’s time. The later, composed in times of national peril, breathe a spirit of too intense feeling to admit of the calm didactic style. Moreover Solomon’s proverbs subsequently to David took the place of the didactic psalms. But some maschil psalms still were composed, and these more lyric in tone and less sententious and maxim-like in style than Proverbs.
ORDER. The Holy Spirit doubtless directed the compiler in arranging as well as the writers in composing the psalms. The first psalm begins, as the Sermon on the Mount (Mat 5:3), and the second closes, with “blessed.” Thus this pair, announcing the blessedness of the godly and the doom of the ungodly in the coming judgment, fitly prefaces the Psalms as John the Baptist’s announcement of the final judgment preludes the gospel (Matthew 3). “A spiritual epitome of all history (Wordsworth); the godly “meditate in the law of the Lord,” the ungodly “meditate a vain thing” (Psa 1:2; Psa 2:1). The five dosing the psalter begin and end with “hallelujah.” The principle of arrangement is not: wholly chronological, though David’s book of psalms is first of the five, and the post captivity book of psalms last; for Moses’ psalm (Psalm 90), the oldest of all, begins the fourth book, and some of David’s psalms are in the fifth. Also the 15 songs of degrees, i.e. ascents of the pilgrims to the three national feasts at Jerusalem, though written at different times, form one group.
Spiritual affinity and the relation to one another and to the whole modify the chronological arrangement. The arrangement in some instances is so significant as to indicate, it to be the work of the Spirit, not of the collector merely. Thus, Psalm 22 portrays Messiah’s death scene, Psalm 23. His rest in paradise, Psalm 24. His ascension (Act 2:25-27; Act 2:37). “At the time the Psalms were written” they were not of such use to those among whom they were written as they are to us, for they were written to prophesy the New Testament among those who lived under the Old Testament” (Augustine on Psalm 101; 1Pe 1:10-12.) The one great theme ultimately meant is Christ, the antitypical David, in respect to His inner life as the Godman, and in His past, present, and future relations to the church and the world (Luk 24:25; Luk 24:27; Luk 24:45-46). The Psalter rightly holds the middle place of the Bible, being the heart of both Old Testament and New Testament.
Other scriptures of the Old Testament have corresponding scriptures in the New Testament The Pentateuch and Old Testament histories answer to the Gospels and Acts; Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the prophets to the epistles; the Song of Solomon and Daniel to Revelation. The Psalms alone have no counterpart in the New Testament, except the songs of the Virgin, Zacharias and Simeon (Luke 1; 2), because the psalter belongs to both Testaments alike, being “the hymnbook of the universal church” (Wordsworth). There is scarcely a place in the Psalms where the voices of Christ and the church are not to be found (Augustine on Psalm 59). Christ’s sufferings and conflict, ending in His reign, appear most in Books I, II; Israel’s prostration in Book III; the fruits of His victory, the Lord s reign, and Israel’s restoration after her past pilgrim state, in Book IV; the songs of degrees, i.e. the church’s pilgrim ascents below, “coming up from the wilderness, leaning upon her Beloved,” and her everlasting hallelujahs, in Book V.
AUTHORS: David composed 80 of the Psalms, Asaph wrote four, singers of his school (See below) penned eight, the sons of Korah of David’s and Solomon’s times seven, Solomon two. To Jehoshaphat’s time belong Psalm 47; Psalm 48; Psalm 83. (See JEHOSHAPHAT.) The occasion of Psalm 47 was his bloodless victory over Moab, Ammon, Edom, and the Arabians, who combined to drive Judah out of their “inheritance” (Psa 47:4; 2Ch 20:11). The title ascribes the psalm to “the sons of Korah,” just as in 2Ch 20:19 the Korahites are in front of the Jews’ army “to praise the Lord God of Israel with a loud voice on high”; so Psa 47:5 answers to 2Ch 20:26. Psalm 47 was perhaps sung in the valley of Bernehah (blessing); Psalm 48 in the temple service on their return (compare Psa 47:9). As Jehoshaphat was “in the fore front” of the returning people (2Ch 20:27), so “Jehovah with the sound of a trumpet went up” to His earthly temple (Psa 47:5).
So “the fear of God was on all the kingdoms” (Psa 47:8-9; compare 2Ch 20:28-29). The breaking of Jehoshaphat’s Tarshish ships is alluded to Psa 48:7, his ungodly alliance being as great a danger from within as the hostile invasion from without; both alike the grace of God averted. (See JAHAZIEL; BERACHAH.) To the time of the overthrow of Sennacherib’s host under Hezekiah belong Psalm 46; Psalm 75; Psalm 76; Psalm 87. (See HEZEKIAH.) To the time of the carrying away of Israel’s ten tribes belong Psalm 77; Psalm 80; Psalm 81. Judah intercedes with God for her captive sister; “of Asaph” in the title may mean only that one of his school wrote under his name as the master of the school. The remaining 46, except Moses’ Psalm 90, were written just before, during, and after the Babylonian captivity. As the psalms took their rise in the religious awakening under David, so the long times of growing declension subsequently were barren of additions to the psalter. The only times of such additions were those of religious revivals, namely, under Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, and Josiah (to whose reign probably belong Psalm 77; Psalm 92; Psalm 100; this series has the common theme, Jehovah’s manifestation for His people’s comfort and their foes’ confusion).
The captivity taught the people a bitter but wholesome lesson; then accordingly psalmody revived. After the last new song sung to the Lord at the completion of the city walls under Nehemiah, no new psalm was composed under inspiration. The written word thenceforth took the place of the inspired speakers of prophecy and song. David gave the tone to all the succeeding psalms, so that, in a sense, he is their author. Recognition of God’s retributive righteousness as a preservative against despair (in undesigned coincidence with the history, 1Sa 30:6), and the sudden interposition of divine consolation amidst sorrowful complaints, are characteristic of his psalms. They are more elevated, and abound in rare forms, from whence arises their greater difficulty. He first introduced the alphabetical arrangement; also the grouping of verses with reference to numbers, and the significancy of the recurrence of the names of God; also the combining of psalms in pairs, and in larger cycles. The divine promise to his line in 2 Samuel 7 forms the basis of many of his Messianic prophecies, as Psalm 138-145; compare with Psa 140:1; 2Sa 22:49.
Wordsworth suggests Psalm 41 and Psalm 71, at the close of Books I and II respectively, were written at the time of Adonijah’s, Joab’s, and Abiathar’s conspiracy when David was old and languishing, yet “in the strength of the Lord God” enabled to rise afresh in the person of Solomon his son, whose throne in Messiah is to be everlasting, as Psalm 72 sets forth. Of Asaph’s psalms, four are composed by David’s chief musician: Psalm 50; Psalm 73; Psalm 78 (warning Ephraim not to rebel against God’s transfer of their prerogative to Zion and Judah), Psalm 82; a didactic and prophetic character marks them all. Eight others (Psalm 74-77; Psalm 79-81; Psalm 83), marked by his name, belong to singers in later times, who regarded him as their founder, just as the sons (followers) of Korah regarded Korah. The Hebrew le- before a name in the title designates the author. Psa 74:8 answers to Jer 52:13; Jer 52:17; the psalmist was probably one of the few Jews left by the Chaldaeans “in the land.” So also Psa 79:1 alludes to the temple’s “defilement” by the Chaldees (Jer 10:25 quotes Psa 79:6).
The psalms of the sons of Korah are fourteen, of which seven belong to David’s and Solomon’s times, and seven to later times. Psalm 42; Psalm 43; Psalm 84; Psalm 86 (according to Hengstenberg, as occurring in the midst of Korahitic psalms though superscribed with David’s name), refer to Absaiom’s rebellion; Psalm 44 on the invasion of the Edomites (2Sa 8:13; 1Ch 18:12; 1Ki 11:15-16); Psalm 49 of general import; Psalm 45 on King Messiah’s marriage to Israel and the church, in Solomon’s time; Psalm 47; Psalm 48; Psalm 83, in Jehoshaphat’s time; Psalm 46; Psalm 87, refer to Sennacherib’s host overthrown before Jerusalem, in Hezekiah’s reign; Psalm 85; Psalm 88; Psalm 89, before the Babylonian captivity.
Neither Heman nor the sons of Heman are named in the superscriptions, but the sons of Korah; perhaps because Heman, though musical and head of the Korahitic singers, was not also poetically gifted as was Asaph; Psalm 88, is gloom throughout, yet the title calls it (shir) a “song” of joy; this can only refer to Psalm 89 which follows being paired with it; it was when the “anointed” of David’s throne (Josiah) had his “crown profaned on the ground,” being not able to” stand in the battle” (Psa 89:43), and his son Jehoahaz after a three months’ reign was carried to Egypt by Pharaoh Necho (2Ch 35:20-25; 2Ch 36:1-4; Psa 89:45); the title, “to the chief musician,” shows the temple was standing, Josiah had just before caused a religious revival.
NUMBERS IN ARRANGEMENT. The decalogue has its form determined by number; also the genealogy in Matthew; so the Lord’s prayer, and especially the structure of the Apocalypse. So Isaiah 1 represents Israel’s revolt in seven, divided into three and four, the four for the sinfulness, and the three for the revolt. And Isa 52:13-53;Isa 52:12; the introduction three verses (Isa 52:13-15) with the concluding two verses (Isa 53:11-12) making up five, the half; the main part comprises ten (Isa 53:1-10), divided into seven for Messiah’s humiliation (three of which represent Messiah’s sufferings, four their cause, His being our substitute) and three for His glorification (Hengstenberg). Similarly, the form of the several psalms is regulated by numbers, especially seven divided into four and three. The correctness of our division into verses is hence confirmed. The criticism too which would dismember the psalms is proved at least in their case, and in that of whatever Scriptures are arranged by numbers, to be false.
NAMES or GOD. A similar proof of the correctness of the text appears in the fact that the ELOHIM psalms are peculiar to the first three books, those of David, Asaph, and the sons of Korah. So strange had “ELOHIM” become in later times that only the Jehovah psalms of David were inserted in the later books, excepting David’s Psalm 108 introductory to Psalm 109 and Psalm 110. The three form a trilogy: Psalm 108 anticipating triumph over the foe, Psalm 109 the foe’s condemnation, Psalm 110 Messiah’s divine kingly and priestly glory. In the fifth book Elohim occurs only seven times, i.e. six times in Psalm 108 and once in David’s Psalm 144. It is an undesigned coincidence and proof of genuineness that in independent sacred history David uses Elohim as a favorite term (2 Samuel 7; 1Ch 28:20; 1Ch 29:1). In Book I “Jehovah” occurs 272 times, Elohim 15 times; in Book II, Elohim 164 times, Jehovah 30 times; in Book III, Jehovah 44 times, Elohim 43 times; in Book IV, Jehovah 103 times, Elohim, not once; in Book V, Jehovah 236 times, Elohim 7 times.
Hengstenberg suggests the reason of David’s predilection for “Elohim.” The pagan regarded Jehovah as designating the local God of Israel, but not God absolutely, possessing the whole fullness of the Godhead. So David felt it unnecessary to express “Jehovah,” because He was unquestionably Israel’s God; it was only contested whether He was Elohim. David boldly, in the face of mighty nations, asserts the nullity of their gods and the sole Godhead of Jehovah; compare Psa 18:31, “who is Elohim but Jehovah?” Jehovah is understood before Elohim in Elohim psalms, as the doxology at the end of the second book recognizes, “blessed be Jehovah Elohim” (Psa 72:18). Latterly when the falsely called Elohim of surrounding nations began to be honoured in Israel the term gave place to Jehovah for expressing the true God. Psalm 18 is “a great hallelujah, with which David retires from tide theater of life.”
I. The first book (Psalm 1-4) the Davidic-Jehovah psalms.
II. The second book (Psalm 42-72) the Elohim psalms; namely, of David’s singers, the sons of Korah (Psalm 42-49), Asaph’s (Psalm 1.), then David’s Elohim psalms (Psalm 51-71), Solomon’s Elohim psalm (Psalm 72).
III. Psalm 73-89, the Jehovah psalms of David’s singers; of Asaph (Psalm 73; Psalm 83), of the sons of Korah (Psalm 84-89). Thus in the arrangement the Jehovah psalms (Jehovah being the fundamental name) enclose the Elohim psalms; so the first book doxology begins with Jehovah; the second has, let Jehovah Elohim be praised; the third, let Jehovah be praised.
IV. (Psalm 90-106.) The psalms of David in the last two books are inserted as component parts into the later cycles. The subscription, Psa 72:20, “the prayers of David, the son of Jesse, are ended,” distinguishes the detached from the serial psalms of David; so Job 31:40 is not contradicted by his again speaking in Job 40; Job 42. Moses’ Psalm 90 is put after David’s and his singers’ psalms, because David was so preeminent as the sweet psalmist of Israel. Psalm 91-100 are connected. Then follows David’s trilogy, Psalm 101-103, and the trilogy of the captivity (Psalm 104-106).
V. Psalm 107-150 are (excepting David’s psalms incorporated) after the return from the captivity. The dodecad Psalm 108-119, is composed of a trilogy of David introducing nine psalms sung at laying the foundation of the second temple. Psalm 119 is the sermon (composed by Ezra) after the Hallel, to urge Israel to regard God’s word as her national safeguard. Psalm 120-134, the pilgrim songs (“songs of degrees”), namely, four psalms of David, one of Solomon, and ten nameless ones, are appropriate to the time of the interruption of the temple building. (See EZRA.) Psalm 135-146 (including David’s psalms incorporated with the rest) celebrate its happy completion.
Psalm 147-150 were sung at the consecration of the city walls under Nehemiah. J. F. Thrupp (Smith’s Bible Dictionary) maintains that as Psalm 73-83 do not all proceed from Asaph, but from members of the choir which he founded, so the psalms in Books III, IV, V, inscribed with the name of David, were written by his royal representatives for the time being (Hezekiah, Josiah, Zerubbabel, etc.), who prefer honouring the name of their ancestor to obtruding their own names. But why then should one of the psalms in question be inscribed with” Solomon” rather than David? The psalms accord with David’s circumstances; their containing phrases of David’s former psalms is not inconsistent with his authorship, as the sacred authors often repeat their own inspired words. The Chaldaisms of Psalm 139 are due to David’s adapting uncommon phrases to a lofty theme.
In 2 Maccabees the collection of David’s psalms is attributed to Nehemiah. Jerome, Ep. ad Sophronium, and the Synopsis in Athanasius, ascribe the collection to Ezra, “the priest and ready scribe in the law of Moses” (Ezr 7:6; Neh 8:9). (On SHIGGAION, etc., see the words as they occur.) Finally, if we would “taste the honey of God” we must “have the palate of faith.” “Attune thy heart to the psalm. If the psalm prays, pray thou; if it mourns, mourn thou; if it hopes, hope thou; if it fears, fear thou. Everything, in the psalter, is the looking glass of the soul” (Augustine on Psalm 96 and Psalm 30). The heart, the lips, and the life must be in accord with the psalm, to derive the full blessing. “Vita sic canta, ut nunquam sileas.” (Augustine on Psalm 146).
Fuente: Fausset’s Bible Dictionary
Psalms
PSALMS.In discussing the relation of Christ to the Psalms, two questions must be kept apart: (1) His use of the Psalter, (2) His presence in the Psalter. Even if we did not know, by direct quotation and indirect allusion, that the Psalter was a favourite book of Christs, we could have safely inferred as much from His general attitude to the OT. The Psalter, as, on the whole, the simplest and purest expression of the devotional life of Israel, must have commended itself peculiarly to Christ.
1. The influence of the Psalter upon the mind of Jesus was probably larger and more profound than His recorded allusions to it, numerous and subtle as they are, would lead us to suppose. There were indeed elements in it which He could not have appropriatedcries for vengeance upon foes (Psa 41:11 (10), cf. Psa 68:24 (23)), or of an almost cruel delight at their defeat (Psa 18:43 (42)), or sorrowful laments at the prospect of a death in which fellowship with God was believed to be interrupted (Psa 6:6 (5) Psa 39:13 (14) Psa 88:11-13 (1012)). But there were other elements which were well fitted to express, as they may have helped to nourish. His piety. Especially must He have been attracted by those psalms which breathe the spirit of quiet confidence in God: Thou art my God; my times are in thy hand (Psa 31:15 f. (Psa 31:14 f.)); In thy presence is fulness of joy (Psa 16:11); As for me, I am continually with thee: thou hast holden my right hand. Thou wilt guide me with thy counsel, and afterward receive me to glory (Psa 73:23 f.). The joy which comes from fellowship with God and from the contemplation of His acts in history (95100), the humble and childlike spirit which lifts meek eyes to the God who looks down in pity from the heavens (123, 130)these and other such tempers and aspirations cannot have been without their influence upon the spirit of Jesus. Most welcome of all would be those fine interpretations of the character of God scattered throughout the Psalteras of one who is not only Lord of all space and time (90, 139), but who is also good and ready to forgive and rich in love to all that call upon him (Psa 86:5, Psa 103:8), who opens His hand and satisfies the desire of every living thing (Psa 145:16), who is father of the fatherless and judge of the widow (Psa 68:6 (5)), who rises up at the oppression of the poor and the sighing of the needy (Psa 12:6 (5)).
2. But in estimating the influence of the Psalter upon Jesus, we are not left to conjecture. On many occasionsnotably at the beginning and the end of His public careerHe uses it directly, and expresses, sometimes the truths of His gospel, sometimes the aspirations of His soul, sometimes His premonitions of the fate of Jerusalem, almost in its very words. The Sermon on the Mount has at least half a dozen references, direct or indirect, to the Psalter; not only words of a more general kind, such as Depart from me, ye workers of iniquity (Mat 7:23 || Luk 13:27, cf. Psa 6:9 (8)), or the allusion to Jerusalem as the city of the great king (Mat 5:35, cf. Psa 48:3 (2)), but even such an assurance as that the heavenly Father feeds the birds (Mat 6:26, cf. Psa 147:9); and some of the Beatitudes themselves are but echoes of the Psalter, e.g. the meek shall inherit the earth (Mat 5:5, cf. Psa 37:11 (the land)), the merciful shall obtain mercy (Mat 5:7, cf. Psa 18:26 (25)). Occasionally a psalm is explicitly cited by Him, e.g. Psa 82:6 in Joh 10:34, and even prefaced by the words, Have ye never read? (cf. Mat 21:16; Mat 21:42), which assume a familiar knowledge of the book, or at least of these particular psalms (8, 118), on the part of His audience. But even where there is no such citation, the language is often saturated with reminiscences of the Psalter. There can be little doubt, e.g., that my soul is exceeding sorrowful (Mat 26:38 || Mar 14:34) is an echo of Ps 42:6, 12, (Psa 42:5; Psa 42:11)), or that he that eateth with me shall betray me (Mar 14:18) is an echo of Psa 41:10, (9) (cf. Joh 13:18, where the treachery is expressly said to be in fulfilment of the utterance in the psalm), or that they shall dash to the ground thy children within thee (Luk 19:44) is a reminiscence of Psa 137:9. In the words of a psalm (Psa 31:6, (Psa 31:5)) Jesus commended His spirit into His Fathers hands (Luk 23:46).
3. These references are not quite exhaustive, but they are characteristic; and they are very significant of Christs general attitude to the Psalter. He makes its words of faith His own in the moment of His sorrow, He repeats its promises to those who are prepared to be His disciples (Luk 10:19, cf. Psa 91:13; Mat 5:5, cf. Psa 37:11); but, with the single exceptionif it be an exceptionof Psalms 110, to be afterwards discussed, He does not seem directly to countenance, by His own example, that Messianic interpretation of the Psalter upon which the Church has, from her earliest days, uniformly insisted. True, it is recorded that He said that all things must needs be fulfilled which are written in the law of Moses, and the prophets, and the psalms, concerning me (Luk 24:44). But within the teaching of Christ Himself there is no certain illustration of specific passages which He applied Messianically to Himself. And this omission would be very singular, if He had generally countenanced Messianic interpretation in the narrower sense in which that word has been commonly understood. He believed in His Messiahship, but He did not rest it upon the basis of individual passages. He claimed to fulfil the Law and the Prophets; but, judging by His general practice, this appears to imply the large fulfilment of their spirit and tendency, rather than any minute and literal fulfilment of particular words. His method of dealing with the Psalms, when controversy is involved, is well illustrated by His citation of Psa 82:6 in Joh 10:34. The Jews are incensed at what they regard as His blasphemy in calling Himself the Son of God. He appeals to the psalm, to show that men exalted to high office had been in the OT called gods; and argues that, if the title was appropriate for them, how much more for Him who had a unique commission and equipment from the Father.
4. It is instructive to turn from Christs use of the Psalter to that of the writers and speakers in the NT; and, in this connexion, it is important to remember that most of their citations from the Psalter are made from the LXX Septuagint . Occasionally this seriously affects the argument. The author of the Ep. to the Hebrews, e.g. (Heb 1:10-12), finds, in the great words of Psa 102:26-28 (Psa 102:25; Psa 102:27)Thou, Lord, in the beginning, didst lay the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the works of thy handsan allusion to Christ. In the LXX Septuagint it is the Lord who is said to he everlasting, and to the author of the Epistle the Lord is Christ. But in the Hebrew psalm the address is to Jehovah, a title which no Hebrew could possibly have applied to the Messiah. Here is a caseand there are otherswhere the argument holds only on the basis of the Greek translation; it would be irrelevant and inapplicable on the basis of the original Hebrew (cf. Eph 4:8, Psa 68:19, (Psa 68:18).
Again, with regard to the psalms customarily called Messianic, it has to be remembered that the songs of the Psalter have, generally speaking, a historical background. They spring, not perhaps always, but undoubtedly often, out of a definite historical situation; that situation, or some aspect of it, is their theme. In many psalms this is obvious (cf. Psalms 44, 83, 137); and the question may fairly be raised whether this is not also the case in the Messianic psalms. Doubtless time might prove that the meaning of a psalm was larger than the original intention of its composer: this is true more or less of all great literature. But to understand truly its deeper meaning, we must start from its original intention, and from the situation in view of which it was composed. While to some of the psalms whose subject is a king a Messianic interpretation has been assigned (cf. 2), in others the actual contents and implications of the psalm render that interpretation impossible. The anointed, e.g. (Heb. his Messiah, LXX Septuagint Christ), in Psa 20:7 (6) is almost necessarily some historical king, and the psalm appears to have been composed on the eve of a battle. If, then, in some of the psalms which deal with a Messiah or Christ, the reference is to a historic king of Israel or Judah, the presumption at least is raised that all the Messianic psalms may be similarly interpreted.
The tendency to find in the Psalter predictive references to Jesus must have set in very early. In Mat 13:35, e.g., the parabolic method of teaching adopted by Jesus is said to be in fulfilment of the prophecy (attributed in one MS to Isaiah), I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter things hidden from the foundation of the world. In point of fact these words simply form the introduction to one of the longer historical psalms (Psa 78:2), and in them the Psalmist simply declares his intention to draw instruction from the ancient history of Israel. There is here no conceivable allusion to the parabolic teaching of Jesus. This interpretation would hardly even have been possible but for the LXX Septuagint , which happens to render the Hebrew by another good illustration of the control that the LXX Septuagint exercised over Messianic interpretation. This tendency to messianize, wherever possible, naturally is operative also outside of the NT. There is no warrant in its pages, e.g., for referring the latter part of Psalms 24 to Christ; but the Fathers applied it to His ascension, and the Te Deum addresses Christ as the King of Glory. Sometimes psalms which are commonly regarded as Messianic contain sentiments which are un-Christian, and which therefore render the Messianic interpretation, in any sense worth defending, untenable. Some exegetes have even held that Psalms 18 is Messianic, in spite of such a verse as Psa 18:43 (Psa 18:42). Psalms 2, whose claims are much more generally allowed, contains sentiments (cf. Psa 2:9) which could not legitimately be reconciled with the spirit of Him who was the Prince of peace.
5. We shall now examine the psalms which are most commonly regarded as Messianicfor convenience sake in the order in which they occur in the Psalter.
Psalms 2. A study of the NT allusions to this psalm is peculiarly instructive, as, though there is a general agreement that it is Messianic, there is considerable variety in its interpretation. One passage, indeed, does not seem even to regard the psalm as Messianic, at least in the narrower sense: in Rev 2:27 the promise of Psa 2:9 that the king would break (LXX Septuagint and NT read (), shepherd, rule, pointing instead of ) the nations with a rod of iron, as the vessels of the potter are broken, is applied, in the message addressed to Thyatira, to the Christian who overcomes and keeps the works of Christ to the end.
This application of the passage shows that, even in very early times, the Messianic interpretation of such psalms was felt to be not the only possible one. It is just possible, however, that the words of the psalm were chosen simply because they were an apposite description of triumph. This becomes the more probable when we remember that elsewhere in this same bookRev 12:5; Rev 19:15the passage is applied Messianically.
The first two verses of the psalmWhy do the heathen rage? etc.are applied in Act 4:25 f. to the combination of Herod, Pilate, the Romans, and the Jews, against thy holy servant Jesus, who is clearly therefore regarded as the king celebrated in the psalm. The verse which the NT most frequently lays under contribution is Act 4:7 Thou art my son; this day have I begotten thee. This verse, or the first part of it, underlies Nathanaels confession (Joh 1:49), Peters confession (Mat 16:16), the high priests question (Mat 26:63), and the voice which is said to have been heard on the occasion of the Baptism (Mat 3:17 = Mar 1:11 = Luk 3:22) and the Transfiguration (Mat 17:5 = Mar 9:7 = Luk 9:35). According to the Codex Bezae in Mat 3:17, the words heard on the occasion of the baptism were, Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee. This attests the belief in some quarters that the Divine sonship of Jesus, which the psalm is supposed to foreshadow, dated from the day of His baptism. But in Act 13:33 St. Paul regards the Psalmists utterance as fulfilled not in the baptism, but in the resurrection of Jesus; and this view appears to underlie the Apostles statement in Rom 1:4 that it was by the resurrection that Jesus was declared to be the Son of God with power. The verse is further applied in Heb 1:5 (cf. Heb 5:5) as a proof of the superiority of Jesus to the angels. In the Hebrew OT, however, the term literally translated sons of God is applied to supernatural beings whether they be regarded as gods or angels; cf. Job 1:6; Job 2:1, where the LXX Septuagint renders by . As, however, there are passages in which even the LXX Septuagint speaks of these beings as sons of God (Psa 29:1; Psa 89:6), we must assume, if the writer has not forgotten them, that he is laying particular stress on the latter half of the verse, this day have I begotten thee. According to the Epistle, however, Jesus took part in the Creation, and was pre-existent before all eternity (Heb 1:2; Heb 1:10); consequently we must suppose that the begetting to-day refers to His eternal generation. See art. Begetting.
Here, then, are three different interpretations of the verse within the NT: the Divine sonship of the Messiah is variously connected with His baptism, His resurrection, or His eternal generation. These interesting fluctuations of opinion are possible only because the historical interpretation of the psalm is ignored. The phrase son of God did not necessarily imply Divinity in the technical sense, for we find it applied even to the people (Exo 4:22), and we have already seen how Jesus argues (Joh 10:34) from the acknowledged application of the term to human beings. In truth, the psalm seems to be addressed to some actual king of Judah, and to express the assurance of his victory and dominion, possibly on the occasion of his coronation. The day on which he was begotten as a son of God is the day on which he was installed in his regal dignity as the representative of Jehovah, the King and Father of His people. It is, we must admit, by no means impossible, especially when we consider the soaring language of the psalm, that its subject is not any reigning king, but some king yet to be; this would be the case if the psalm belongs, as it may, to the post-exilic period, when the monarchy was no more. But in neither case can it be strictly regarded as referring to Jesus, partly because the establishment of the king upon the holy hill of Zion would have no relevance in His case; partly because the conception of His function as dashing His enemies in pieces is un-Christian. Besides, as we have seen, the NT itself is not agreed as to the precise incident which the psalm is supposed to prefigure. But its solemn and emphatic predication of the Divine sonship of the king, possibly also its outlook upon a world-wide dominion, made it natural, and almost inevitable, under the conditions of early Christian interpretation, that it should he regarded as, in some sense, a prediction of Jesus.
Psalms 8. It is interesting to compare the use made of this psalm by Jesus with that made elsewhere in the NT. Psa 5:3 (2) Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings, etc., is quoted by Him against the chief priests (Mat 21:16), who murmur when they hear the children cry Hosanna. The NT follows the LXX Septuagint , which reads praise instead of the Hebrew strength, bulwark; but the essential meaning of the psalm is finely brought out by the citationthe power, on the one hand, or the insight, on the other, of the children (cf. for a very similar thought, Mat 11:25). In Heb 2:6-8, however (cf. 1Co 15:27 f.), Thou madest him a little (or for a little while) lower than the angels,vv. Psa 8:5-6 of the psalm are interpreted as referring to Jesus, because the supremacy which, in the psalm, is asserted of the son of man is not, as a matter of fact, true of the human race, but it is true of Jesus. This is a noble application of the passage, full of poetic and spiritual insight; but it does not justify us in supposing that the psalm was, in its original intention, Messianic. The Psalmist is undoubtedly thinking of the human race, he marvels at the love of the great God towards His apparently insignificant creature in making him lord of all. Thou hast put all things under his feet. To the Psalmist this supremacy is a fact: he is content with man as he finds him, and he is not thinking of One in whom this lordship would be more perfectly realized.
Psalms 16. In Act 2:25-28 (cf. Act 13:35-37) St. Peter quotes four verses of the psalm (Psa 16:8-11) in confirmation of the resurrection of Christ. The crucial verse is Act 2:27 Thou wilt not leave my soul unto Hades, neither wilt thou give thy holy one to see corruption. It is not quite certain whether the psalm is individual or collective. If it be collective, this verse implies no more than an assured faith in the future of Israel; if, however, it be individual, the speaker is probably expressing his own faith in immortality, though a more meagre meaning has been put upon the words, as if he were simply expressing his confidence in his recovery from a severe illness, or perhaps in his immunity from the sudden death which overtakes the wicked. In any case thy holy onean unfortunate translationis undoubtedly the speaker himself. He is Jehovahs hsd, that is, a bond of love subsists between him and his God; and, in virtue of this bond, he is sure that Sheol cannot be his ultimate fate,he will overleap it, and be received into glory (Psa 73:24). The last word of Psa 16:10 , which means pit, was, however, unfortunately rendered by LXX Septuagint , corruption; and part of St. Peters argument, as of St. Pauls in Act 13:35-37, depends upon the mistranslation. The argument is that, as the Psalmist himself saw corruption (Act 13:36), he was really speaking, not of himself, but, prophetically, of Jesus, who saw no corruption. The psalm is therefore regarded as a prophecy of the resurrection of Christ, though it is, in reality, only a devout believers confession of faith in his own immortality. But it is only fair to notice that, while the form of the argument in Acts is Jewish, and rests, in part, upon a mistranslation, in substance the argument is sound. What the psalm essentially asserts is, that where a bond of love subsists between God and a man, death has no power to destroy the mana fortiori in the case of the Man. It was not possible that He should be conquered by him (Act 2:24)such a one as Jesus by such an antagonist as death.
Psalms 22. Nothing is more natural than that the early Christians should have interpreted this psalm Messianically, or that that interpretation should have persisted throughout the whole history of the Christian Church. It is not only that echoes of it are heard in the Passion story of the Gospels,in the parting of His garments and the casting of the lot for His raiment (Mat 27:35 = Mar 15:24 = Luk 23:34, Psa 22:19 (18)), the shaking of the heads of the passers-by (Mat 27:39 = Mar 15:29 = Luk 23:35, Psa 22:8 (7)), the mocking cry, He trusted in God, let him deliver him (Mat 27:43, Psa 22:9 (8)),but Jesus Himself upon the cross used at least the opening words of the psalm (Mat 27:46 = Mar 15:34), and the parting of His garments is expressly said in Joh 19:24 to have taken place that the scripture might be fulfilled. It must be admitted that there is often a very startling similarity between the details of the psalm and the narrative of the Gospels. Still, many of those details are not strictly applicable to the crucifixion. Alike in the sufferings, in the triumphant issue from them, and in the contemplated conversion of the world which is to be produced by that triumph (Joh 19:28 (27)), this psalm very powerfully recalls the Suffering Servant of Deutero-Isaiah; and the theme of both is doubtless the same, that is, the people, or at least the pious kernel of Israel. More important, however, than the similarity of detail just alluded to, striking as that is, is the large and profound insight of the psalm. It is all aglow with the consciousness that suffering means, in the end, not defeat, but victory, and that the Suffering Servant, so far from being crushed, will one day win the whole world to Himself. These truths, of course, find their highest and truest exemplification in Jesus.
Psa 34:21 (20). According to Joh 19:36 the legs of Jesus were not broken, in order that the scripture might be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken. In the psalm the verse is intended to express the general care which Jehovah exercises over the righteous, and therefore it could hardly be regarded as an apt citation in connexion with the crucifixion of Jesus; but more probably it is intended to be, primarily, a reminiscence of Exo 12:46, Num 9:12, which prescribe that the bones of the Paschal lamb shall not be broken. In that case the quotation would convey to a Jewish ear the subtle reminder that Jesus was the true Paschal lamb.
Psalms 40. In Heb 10:5-7 part of this psalm (Heb 10:7-9 (68)) is quoted, and interpreted as a prayer of Christ on coming into the world; and here, again, a large part of the argument turns upon the faulty text of the LXX Septuagint . The author is arguing that the continual sacrifices of the OT dispensation have been for ever abolished by the one sacrifice of Christ. In the body which God prepared for Him, He perfectly fulfilled the Divine will by the sacrifice of Himself. But the words a body didst thou prepare for me, which the author adopts from the LXX Septuagint , do not represent the Heb. of Psa 40:7 (6), which reads, ears hast thou digged for me. Fortunately the origin of the mistake is not far to seek. The word for ears is , and for body . The at the end of was apparently duplicated, and then the following was easily transformed into ; so that out of an originally correct translation, ears, a new word arose, which unhappily lent itself to a dogmatic interpretation almost the opposite of that intended by the Psalmist. His point is that God demands not sacrifice but obediencethe ready ear to hear; the point in the Epistle is, not the ever-recurring sacrifice, but the one sacrifice of Christs body. As, however, the ethical worth, in one of its aspects, of Christs sacrifice was the perfect obedience which it illustrated, we may say that here, as in the case of Psalms 16, the conclusion is essentially sound, though the argument is fallacious, at least in so far as it rests upon a mistranslation. Historically considered, the psalm appears to be a prayer expressing the mingled feelings of the people after their return from exile. It is one of the three great psalms (cf. 50, 51) which emphatically assert the superiority of obedience and contrition over sacrifice.
Psa 41:10 (9). In the Gospel of John, as in the Epistle to the Hebrews, there is a strong tendency towards the Messianic interpretation of passages in which, to say the least, that interpretation is not necessary. According to Joh 13:18 the treachery of Judas is said to have taken place in accordance with the scripture, which must be fulfilled, He that eateth my bread lifted up his heel againstme. In other words, Psa 41:10 (9) is supposed to have Christ for its theme. That this is impossible, however, is clearly shown by the very verse of the psalm which follows the quotation, Thou, Jehovah, have mercy upon me, and raise me up, that I may requite them. It is much more probable that Jesus simply used the words which St. Mark records of Him,words, no doubt, suggested by the psalm, One of you shall betray me, even he that eateth with me. He may have cited the words of the psalm as apposite rather than prophetic.
Psalms 45. For long Psalms 45 has enjoyed among Christian expositors the reputation of celebrating the love of Christ for His Church. But a glance at the psalm is enough to show that it, like others, has its roots in history; the pointed and definite reference to the daughter of Tyre renders any other interpretation extremely improbable. It is apparently a song in celebration of the marriage of some king of Israel or Judah with a foreign princess. Psa 45:7 f. (6 f.)Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever, etc.are cited in Heb 1:8 f. and interpreted as referring to the Son. Considering that shortly before, Heb 5:2, and immediately after, Heb 5:10, the author of the Epistle touches upon the pre-existence of Christ, the direct naming of the royal subject of the psalm as God would be peculiarly welcome. With what admirable cogency could the psalm thus be interpreted of Christ, and how little could it be fairly referred to any one else! For the passages which some have adduced to prove that could stand for judges (cf. Exo 22:7 f.)though they do not really prove as muchwould in any case be insufficient to show that an ordinary human king could be addressed in the word Elohim; the king of the psalm must therefore be Divine. It has been conjectured, however, with great acuteness and probability, that instead of God, the original reading was shall be (). This may have been carelessly read as , and then altered by the Elohistic redactors of Psalms 42-83 to . In that case the important dogmatic text, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever, becomes the innocent assertion that thy throne shall be for ever and ever, and with the change in the text, the Messianic interpretation vanishes, especially as the next verse speaks of his companions. Of a human king this is intelligible, but who would the companions of the Messiah be?
Psalms 69. It might seem surprising that a psalm marked by so vindictive a spirit as Psalms 69 should ever have been interpreted Messianically, but several of its verses are even in the NT brought into relation with Christ. In his usual manner St. John (Joh 19:28-30) sees in the offering of vinegar to Jesus on the cross a fulfilment of scripture, that is, of Psa 69:22 (21) (cf. Mar 15:36, Luk 23:36), while St. Matthew (Mat 27:34; Mat 27:48), who parallels the language of the psalm still more closely by speaking of the gall, does not explicitly connect the incident with the psalm, though doubtless it was in his mind. The zeal with which Jesus drove the money-changers out of the Temple, is said in Joh 2:17 to have reminded the disciples of Joh 5:10 (9) of the psalm; and Rom 15:3, where the second half of this verse is quoted, shows that St. Paul interpreted the psalm Messianically (but cf. Rom 11:9 f. with Psa 69:23 f. (22 f.)). In Act 1:20, Psa 69:26 (25) and Psa 109:8 are regarded as inspired predictions of the fate of Judas (Act 1:16). Two difficulties, however, stand in the way of interpreting this psalm Messianically: (1) It plainly reflects a contemporary historical situation; it is the product of a time when Judah is in misery and her cities are in ruins (Psa 69:36 (35)); and (2) its fierce vindictive tone (cf. Act 5:24) is altogether unlike the spirit of Him who said, Father, forgive them. The similarity of incidents in the life of Jesus to certain features of the psalm may have led to its Messianic application; but it has nothing like the claims to such a distinction which Psalms 22 has.
Psalms 72. The NT lends hardly any support to the Messianic interpretation of this psalm, though this interpretation has found much favour with Christian expositors. The description of the gifts of gold that were brought to the infant Jesus (Mat 2:11) perhaps recalls, in part, the language of the psalm, cf. psalm, cf. psalm, cf. Psa 72:10 f., Psa 72:15; but in spite of the extravagant language of psalm, cf. Psa 72:8-11 (which are possibly, as some hold, a later insertion, added after the psalm began to be interpreted Messianically), it was, in all probability, originally only a prayer for some historic king. psalm, cf. Psa 72:15, in which prayer is to be continually offered for the royal subject of the psalm, shows that the Messianic interpretation is hardly admissible.
Psalms 110. No psalm is so frequently laid under contribution in the NT as Psalms 110, V. 1, e.g., is referred to, directly or allusively, in Mat 22:44; Mat 26:64, Mar 12:36; Mar 14:62; Mar 16:19, Luk 20:42 f., Luk 22:69, Act 2:34 f., Act 5:31, Act 7:55 f., Rom 8:34, 1Co 15:25, Eph 1:20, Col 3:1, 1Pe 3:22, Heb 1:3; Heb 1:13; Heb 8:1; Heb 10:12 f., Heb 12:2; and v. 4 in Heb 5:6; Heb 6:20; Heb 7:11; Heb 7:17; Heb 7:21 etc. The first verse is interpreted of Jesus, who, as the Messiah, is bidden by the Lord (Jehovah in the Hebrew) to sit at His right hand till He has vanquished all His enemies; while, according to the Ep. to the Heb., He is also the priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek. Other priesthoods were transitory, His is eternal and inalienable (Heb 7:16; Heb 7:24). The use of the psalm made by Christ, together with the very deliberate, if not solemn words in which He introduces the citation, certainly raise a strong presumption that He regarded the psalm as Messianic. But in this connexion two things have to be remembered: (1) that this allusion springs from an atmosphere of controversy, and (2) that the essential meaning of Christ is independent of the Messianic view of the psalm. (1) As against the Pharisees, the citation had a peculiar relevance and propriety. Christ desires them to feel that they have not carefully considered the consequences of their views regarding the Messiah. (2) The real intention of Christ is to suggest the indefeasible superiority of the spiritual to the material. Starting from the conception of sonship, the Pharisees ended in thoughts of a material and political kingdom like Davids, whereas, had they considered the sense in which the Messiah was Davids Lord, they would have found themselves in a spiritual sphere.
It is certainly very difficult to resist the impression that the psalm is Maccabaean. Without laying too much stress upon the singular fact that the initial letters of each verse from Psa 110:1 b to Psa 110:4, , spell the word Simon, the historical implications of the psalm point very powerfully to the Maccabaean period. It implies that the king celebrated also bore the title of priest, and not till that period could this have been appropriately said of any ruler. The language of the opening verse, which, in the Hebrew, runs Oracle of Jehovah to my lord, most naturally suggests that the psalm is composed by a poet in honour of his king, whom he calls my lord, and for whom he foretells victory. But the vigorous language of Psa 110:6 hardly seems compatible with the idea that its theme is Christ.
The use made of the psalm by St. Peter in Act 2:34 f. is thoroughly analogous to his use of Psalms 16. Immediately after arguing that Psalms 16, with its seeming prophecy of the resurrection, could not refer to David because he both died and was buried, the Apostle goes on to argue that Psalms 110 must also be referred to some other than David, because he did not ascend into the heavens. But in truth the sitting at the right hand of God is simply a pictorial way of suggesting an idea similar to that of Psa 2:7, where a historical king is called the son of God. The grandeur of the phrase sitting at the right hand of God, the contemplated completeness of the kings victory, the union in his person of the offices or priest and king, and the mysterionsness that gathered round the person and the priesthood of Melchizedek, all combined to make the Messianic interpretation easy and all but inevitable.
Psalms 118. With this psalm as with Psalms 8, Jesus assumed a certain familiarity on the part of His audience (Mat 21:42 Did ye never read?). His use of it strongly suggests, though perhaps it hardly compels, the belief that He regarded it as Messianic. With the words, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord (Psa 118:26), He was acclaimed by the multitudes as He entered Jerusalem (Mat 21:9; Mat 21:15 = Mar 11:9 f. = Luk 19:38 = Joh 12:13), and in the same words He ends His lament over Jerusalem (Mat 23:39). The saying that the stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner (Psa 118:22), is also understood to find its fulfilment in Him (Mat 21:42 = Mar 12:10 f. = Luk 20:17; cf. Act 4:11, 1Pe 2:4; 1Pe 2:7). In the psalm, the reference appears to be to Israel, despised yet victorious; but as the career of Jesus is the most perfect illustration of the principle pictorially expressed in the saying, the citation is thoroughly in keeping with the spirit of the psalm, though it cannot be regarded as a prediction. Similarly, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord, is more strikingly appropriate to Jesus than even to the original subject of the psalm.
6. In conclusion, it may be said that the exegetical methods and the Messianic outlook of the early Church rendered it very natural that they should find in the Psalter, as in other parts of the OT, predictions of incidents in the life of Christ, or that psalms descriptive, on the one hand, of malignant persecution and agonized suffering, or embodying, on the other hand, a large outlook upon a universal dominion, should be claimed for Him. Usually there is an appropriateness, sometimes very striking, in the application to Him of passages in the Psalter which, for various reasons, can seldom, if ever, be with any plausibility regarded as predictions of Him. Often, as we have seen, a psalm can be regarded as Messianic only by ignoring its historical background (Psalms 69), or by selecting and emphasizing certain verses while ignoring others that suggest an inadequate or unworthy view of the Messiah (Psalms 2). There are undoubtedly in the Psalter many true foreshadowings of Christ; but, speaking broadly, it is in its general spirit rather than in its isolated expressions that we may find Him. Of course, it has been commonly urged that a psalm may be typically Messianic though it is not prophetic; but it may be questioned whether it is worth while to interpret literature in this fashion. Christs own use of the Psalter is strikingly different from the occasional use of it, e.g., in the Book of the Acts. He did not commend His Messiahship after the fashion in which His Apostles sometimes do. Profound as is the insight with which they often cite and apply the Psalter, very much more than the Master do the disciples emphasize the letter, sometimes even the letter of an inadequate translation. From His use of it we learn to find in the Psalter a support of the devotional life rather than a mainstay of Messianic argument.
Literature.Binnie, The Psalms, their History, Teaching, and Use, pp. 155217; Alexander, Witness of the Psalms to Christ and Christianity (BL [Note: L Bampton Lecture.] , 1876); Jennings and Lowe, The Psalms, with Introductions and Critical Notes, vol. i. ch. iv.; Kirkpatrick, The Psalms (Cambridge Bible), Introduction, ch. viii.; Cheyne, The Christian Use of the Psalms; A. B. Davidson, Biblical and Literary Essays, pp. 139193; Briggs, The Psalms, 2 vols. (ICC [Note: CC International Critical Commentary.] ) 19067, esp. Introd. p. ci ff. Allusions to the Psalter in NT are collected in Alexanders Witness of the Psalms, pp. 257264; but they can be most profitably studied in Toy, Quotations in the NT; Hhn, Die messianischen Weissagungen, 2 Theil, Die Alttestamentlichen Citate und Reminiscenzen im NT; Dittmar, Vetus Testamentum in Novo.
John E. MFadyen.
Fuente: A Dictionary Of Christ And The Gospels
Psalms
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. mizmr, 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. 233253) 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 (90119, 135150) are either without title, or the titles are not the same in any considerable number of consecutive Psalms (but note 108110 and 138145 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 processthe 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 Davids Psalms which closes with the statement that the Prayers of David are endeda 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 19:1-14entitled of (or belonging to) the chief musician, a Psalm, of (or belonging to) Davidhad previously been included in three distinct collections; and so also Psa 44:1-26entitled of the chief musician, of the sons of Korah, Maschil. Perhaps the strongest case for these further collections is that of the chief musicians 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 Womens 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 interpretationa 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 laterafter 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 musicians 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 Smiths 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 Maccaban 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 (Chasdm) 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 Israels 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 Maccaban 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 Maccaban 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 Davids 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 Davids? It will be found on an examination that the positive reasons assigned for regarding any particular Psalm as Davids 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 Davids 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 Davids 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 Davids 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 writers standpoint, the experiences or aspirations or the religions faith of the nation or of the religious communitywhether 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. 14 and 512 = 108:613] 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, 19:16, 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 afflicted subject of other Psalms written in the first person an individual, or, like the much afflicted subject of Psa 129:1-8, Israel? For instance, does the author of the words, Thou wilt not abandon my soul to Sheol, nor suffer thy holy one to see corruption (Psa 16:10), express the conviction that he himself will never see death (for it is this and not resurrection that the words imply), or that Israel will never cease to be? Does the author of Psa 51:1-19 make confession of purely personal sins (Psa 51:1-5), and look forward as an individual to a missionary career (Psa 51:13), or, like the authors of Lam 1:18-22, Isa 63:7 to Isa 64:12, does he, identifying himself with his people, make confession of national sins? It is impossible either to discuss this fully here, or to attempt to determine how far the use of I = Israel extends beyond Psa 129:1-8. One other feature of the Psalms which superficially appear to describe the experiences of the individual may be noted: many of them break off into perfectly obvious prayers for the nation (e.g. Psa 25:22; Psa 28:9), or into appeals to the community as a whole to participate in the writers experience or aspirations (cf. e.g. Psa 30:4 f., Psa 32:11). These departures from the apparently individual tenor of the rest of the Psalm are sometimes treated as glosses; and they may be such. Not all of these Psalms need have the same origin: some may have been originally written as national confessions, some, originally of a more exclusively individual character, may have been fitted for use by the community, by the addition of liturgical verses and the elimination of what was too limited to be of general applicability.
Summary.The conclusion to be drawn even from this brief survey of the origin of the Psalter and the character of the Psalms may be stated thus:The Psalms as we have received them are sacred poems that reflect more or less clearly the conditions of the post-exilic Jewish community and express its varying religious feelings and aspirations; in origin some of these Psalms may go back to the pre-exilic period, some may originally have sprung out of circumstances peculiar to an individual; but in consequence of editing by the successive compilers of the post-exilic hymn-books through which the Psalms have come down to us, most of the peculiarly pre-exilic or individual characteristics which may have distinguished them originally have been largely obliterated.
7. Religious value and influence of the Psalter.Probably no book of the OT has exercised a more profound and extensive influence over succeeding ages than the Psalms. Among the Jews, indeed, the Law has received a more persistent and greater attention; but the place of the Psalms in the history of the Christian Church and in Christian experience is typified by the frequency with which they are quoted in the NT. To trace this influence, or to illustrate it as Mr. Prothero has so excellently done in his volume entitled The Psalms in Human Life, falls outside the scope of this article. All that can be attempted, and even that but very inadequately, is to indicate some of the leading religious ideas, some of the striking religious qualities of the Psalms. And in doing this it is necessary to emphasize clearly the fact that such ideas and qualities are by no means common to all the 150 or more poems which were written by an indefinite number of writers, and were gathered together in our Psalter. What alone is aimed at here is to draw attention to some of the qualities that are at least frequently present, and some of the ideas which frequently or strikingly appearto the ideas and qualities which have in large measure been the cause of the great and persistent influence which the Psalms have exercised.
(1) The Psalms occupy a peculiar position in the OT literature in consequence of their character. The Law codifies the customs of Israel which had received the approval of Jahweh; the Historical Narratives relate Jahwehs dealings with Israel; the Prophets deliver Jahwehs message to Israel, and in the Psalms Israel replies. These distinctions are of course broadly drawn, and we may find, for example, in Jeremiah (e.g. Jer 20:7 ff.) contentions with Jahweh that may be somewhat closely paralleled in the Psalms; or, again, the facts that faced the author of the Book of Job are discussed, for example, in Psa 37:1-40; Psa 49:1-20; Psa 73:1-28, though more briefly, and in the case of Psa 37:1-40; Psa 49:1-20 less penetratingly. Yet it is true that in the main the Psalter contains the prayers and praises of Israel, and that they have become classical and stimulating examples for later generations.
(2) But if in the Psalms Israel speaks to God, it speaks as one who has been taught by the Prophets. The Prophets stood alone, or supported by but a small company of disciples, addressing a deaf or gainsaying nation; the Psalmists identify themselves either with their whole people or at least with a numerous, if oppressed, community. The Prophets upbraid the people with forgetting Jahweh, with forsaking Him for other gods; the Psalmists find difficulty in accounting for the calamities that have come upon their nation, which has not forgotten God, but suffers for its very loyalty to Him (e.g. Psa 44:20 [render If we had forgotten, etc.]). The prophet of the Exile endeavours to awaken Israel to its destiny as a missionary nation (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; cf. art. Servant of the Lord); the Israel of many of the Psalms has accepted the role (e.g. Psa 47:1-9; Psa 51:1-19; Psa 100:1-5). But a full discussion of the manifold influence of the Prophets on the Psalmists is impossible here.
(3) We turn now to the Psalmists belief in God: and here it must suffice to draw attention to two featuresthe breadth of the conception, and the intensity of the consciousness, of God. The early belief of Israel that other gods besides Jahweh existed has left traces in the Psalter, but is probably nowhere present as a living belief. Some of the Psalmists use phrases that originally sprang from a belief in other gods (e.g. Psa 77:13; Psa 95:3), but the mere use of such phrases proves nothing as to the actual belief of a later generation that may continue to employ them; we continue to use them ourselves; and often the Psalmists refer to other gods only in order to emphasize Jahwehs supremacy (Psa 89:6-8, Psa 96:4), or to imitate the arguments with which the Deutero-Isaiah had ridiculed the gods of the nations out of existence (e.g. Psa 115:1-18; Psa 135:1-21). A deeper effect of the earlier belief may probably be seen in what is in any case a conspicuous and permanently influential feature of the Psalmsthe intimacy of the consciousness of God. In Israel the monotheistic idea sprang, not from an abstraction of what was common to many gods previously or still worshipped, but from the expansion of the thought of the same one God whom alone Israel had previously worshipped. While Israel believed the gods of other nations to be real beings set over against Jahweh, it was natural for them to feel a peculiarly close relation to Jahweh, to look upon Him as their possession; the belief in other gods perished, the sense of Jahweh as a close and intimate Personality survived; and not a little of the enduring power of the Psalms is due to the vivid apprehension of God that resulted. Jahweh is the living God as opposed to the unrealities that have been taken by other peoples as gods. Supreme in Nature (Psa 8:1-9; Psa 104:1-35; Psa 93:1-5) as in History (and such He is to many at least of the Psalmists), Jahweh nevertheless remembers and visits man (Psa 8:1-9); He abides though all else perishes (e.g. Psa 46:1-11; Psa 102:1-28), and to those who possess Him all else sinks into insignificance (Psa 73:25 ff.).
At times, indeed, this sense of possessing Jahweh obscures for the Psalmists the full meaning of Jahweh as the one and only God of the whole world and of all mankind. Not all the imprecatory Psalms, as they are termed, show a sense of the universality of Jahwehs relations. But in others the universal note rings clear (see, e.g., Psa 47:1-9; Psa 65:1-13; Psa 67:1-7; Psa 100:1-5).
(4) This brings us to another feature of the Psalms which has contributed to the influence exercised by themthe hope that is in them, their Messianic outlook. They look beyond the present which for the writers is often full of oppression and affliction, to a future which is sometimes described with some fulness (e.g. Psa 72:1-20), but is often merely suggested by the call on God to arise, to awake, to reveal Himself; or by some other brief but pregnant phrase. We cannot here discuss how far the Psalms anticipate a particular Messianic individual; it must suffice to say that the original sense of many passages has been obscured by specific applications to the life of Christapplications which in some instances have been built on a very questionable Hebrew text or an illegitimate translation, and that in some Psalms (e.g. Psa 2:1-12) the Messiah is perhaps rather the nation of Israel, supreme among the nations of the world (cf. Dan 7:1-28), than an individual ruler or deliverer, whether of Israel or of the world. But where fuller expression is given to the hope, it often takes the form of the establishment of the Kingdom of God, without reference to any other king than God Himself; the overruling thought is of the manifestation of His supreme sovereignty and the consequent promotion of righteousness and equity among all people (so pre-eminently Psa 96:1-13; Psa 97:1-12; Psa 98:1-9; Psa 99:1-9; Psa 100:1-5). Even in the broadest form of this thought. it is true that Israel occupies a central position and Zion is to become for the whole world what it has long been for Israelthe centre of religion, the place where Jahweh will be worshipped (cf. esp. Psa 87:1-7). No Psalmist has attained to the standpoint of our Lords teaching in Joh 4:21 f.
(5) From the thought of the Psalmists about God and their hope in Him, we may turn to their thought of men, which is for the most part primarily of Israel, and in particular to their sense of sin.
Judged by their attitude towards sin, the Psalms fall into two great groups: the extreme representatives of each group are very different in thought, tone, and temper; the less extreme approximate more or less closely to one another. In the one group the writers claim for themselves, and, so far as they identify themselves with Israel, for their nation, that they are righteous, and in consequence have a claim on Gods righteousness to deliver them from present afflictions (so, e.g., Psa 7:1-17; Psa 17:1-15; Psa 26:1-12; Psa 28:1-9; Psa 44:1-26; Psa 86:1-17). In the other group, confession is made of great iniquity: the appeal for help, if made, can be made to Gods mercy and lovingkindness alone (see Psa 25:1-22; Psa 32:1-11; Psa 40:1-17; Psa 51:1-19; Psa 65:1-13; Psa 85:1-13. etc.). The first group stand far removed from the early Prophets; but they have considerable resemblance in thought to Habakkuk; the second group, again, differ from the early Prophets; for though both recognize the sinfulness of Israel, yet the Prophets complain that Israel does not recognize its sin, whereas these Psalms make confession of sin on behalf of the nation (cf. the late confession in Isa 63:7 to Isa 64:12).
(6) The view taken of sin in both groups of Psalms is best appreciated by noticing how, with all their difference, they are yet related. Some sense of sin is perhaps never altogether absent from the Psalms that lay claim to righteousness, and a strong sense of relative righteousness generally accompanies the most fervent confession of sin. Even in such Psalms as the 32nd and the 51st, where the difference is most clearly felt between Gods standard and mans performance, the sense is also present of a sharp difference between those who. In spite of sin, yet pursue after righteousness, and those who constitute the class of the wicked or the transgressors. This attitude towards sin might doubtless without much difficulty become that of the Pharisee in the parable; but it is also closely akin to the highest Christian consciousness, in which the shadow of sin shows darkest in the light of the righteousness and love of God as revealed in Christ, and which leads the truest followers of Christ, with all honesty, to account themselves the chief of sinners. And it is because the penitential Psalms are confessions, not so much of grosser sins open to the rebuke of man, but of the subtler sins which are committed in the sight of and against God only, of the sins which stand in the way of the nation called of God fulfilling its missionary destiny, that these Psalms have played so conspicuous a part in forming the habit and moulding the form of the confession of the Christian man and the Christian Church.
On the poetical form of the Psalms, see Poetry and Acrostic. The first edition of T. K. Cheynes Book of Psalms (1882) with its fine original translation and tersenotes full of insight, is one of the best books the student can use; in the second edition the translation is based on a very radical re-construction of the Hebrew text, which has not obtained general approval. Other translations are Weilhausen-Furnesss in the Polychrome Bible and S. R. Drivers Parallel Psalter (Prayer-Book version and a revised version based thereon). The most important Com. in English is by C. A. Briggs (ICC [Note: CC International Critical Commentary.] , 19067). Other useful commentaries are W. F. Cobb (with independent translation), Kirkpatrick on AV [Note: Authorized Version.] (in Cambridge Bible), and W. T. Davison and T. W. Davies on RV [Note: Revised Version.] (Century Bible). The most exhaustive treatise on the literary criticism and religious thought of the Psalter is T. K. Cheynes Origin of the Psalter (1891: many details implicitly withdrawn or corrected in the authors later writings; see, e.g., art. Psalms in EBi [Note: Encyclopdia Biblica.] ). For briefer treatment of the literary questions see W. R. Smiths chapter (vii.) on the Psalter in OTJC [Note: TJC The Old Test. in the Jewish Church.] , and S. R. Drivers LOT [Note: OT Introd. to the Literature of the Old Testament.] .
G. B. Gray.
Fuente: Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible
Psalms
The book of Psalms is called by the Jews Sepher Tihillim, which more particularly signifies, the book of psalms, or hymns of praise. But there are two other names given by the Hebrews to the psalms, Zemer and Sher. The former is taken from, a root in Hebrew signifying to prune; and the latter from a word signifying power. And hence some have thought, that as the chief scope and tendency of the psalms is to lead to Christ, the former implies his humiliation, and the latter his glory. And it is remarkable, (but whether it may be considered as confirming this opinion I do not presume to say) that when the Lord Jesus was expounding to the two disciples, in his way to Emmaus, on the morning of his resurrection, the things concerning himself, he made use of those very arguments as proofs in his humiliation, and glory of his divine mission. “Ought not Christ (said he) to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory.” (Luk 24:26)
The Psalms have been generally divided into five heads, but it doth not appear that the Holy Ghost hath given any authority for this division. Taken as one grand whole, they form a complete epitome of the gospel; and from those which plainly point to Christ, and can refer to no other, we may venture to conclude that those which do not in our apprehension, the obscurity ariseth from our dulness, and not from any want of allusion to him. As to Jesus give all the prophets witness, and as the Psalms many of them are prophetical, evidently they are included. It is best in the perusal of every one of them to be on the look-out for Jesus, for precious are the things contained in the Psalms concerning him.
On those fifteen psalms entitled A song of degrees, from Psa 120:1-7 to Psa 134:1-3 included, I can offer no one observation to form the least conjecture what the title means. As the Holy Ghost hath not thought proper to explain the cause for which they are so called, it should seem to be the safest plan to avoid all unprofitable enquiries, than attempt to be wise above what is written. The Psalms themselves are full of Jesus, and therefore in the discovery and enjoyment of him it will be our highest wisdom to direct our researches, praying that as often as the Holy Ghost opens any part of this precious volume to our meditation, he that hath the key of David may open our heart to the right apprehension of them, to make us wise unto salvation, through the faith that is in Christ Jesus.
Fuente: The Poor Mans Concordance and Dictionary to the Sacred Scriptures
Psalms
This word occurs in the O.T. only in connection with the Psalms of David and those in the Book of Psalms. David is called “the sweet psalmist of Israel.” 2Sa 23:1. There can be no doubt that in connection with the ‘singers,’ and the praising God with instruments, the Psalms were used. We read “sing psalms unto him,” “Make a joyful noise unto him with psalms,” etc. In N.T. days, for a time at least, the Psalms of David may have been sung by believers, but there were also hymns and spiritual songs, and it is to be remarked that in the singing at the institution of the Lord’s supper a hymn () is spoken of, not a psalm (). See PASSOVER. The latter Greek word (besides the occurrences which refer to the Book of Psalms) is found in 1Co 14:26; Eph 5:19; Col 3:16.
Fuente: Concise Bible Dictionary
Psalms
Of Moses, celebrating the deliverance at the Red Sea
Exo 15:1-19
Didactic songs composed by Moses, celebrating the providence, righteousness, and judgments of God
Deu 32:1-43; Psa 90
Song of Deborah, celebrating Israel’s victory over Sisera
Jud 1:5
Of Hannah, in thankfulness for a son
1Sa 2:1-10
Of David:
– Celebrating his deliverance
2Sa 22
– On the occasion of removing the ark
1Ch 16:7-36
– At the close of his reign
2Sa 23:2-7; 1Ch 29:10-19
Of Isaiah
Isa 12:1-6; Isa 25
Of Hezekiah, celebrating deliverance from death
Isa 38:9-20
Of Mary
Luk 1:46-55
Of Elizabeth
Luk 1:42-45
Of Zacharias
Luk 1:68-79
Psalms of Affliction
Psa 3:1-8; Psa 4:1-8; Psa 5:1-12; Psa 7; Psa 11:1-7; Psa 13:1-6; Psa 16:1-11; Psa 17:1-15; Psa 22; Psa 26:1-12; Psa 27:1-14; Psa 28:1-9; Psa 31; Psa 35; Psa 41:1-13; Psa 42:1-11; Psa 43:1-5; Psa 44; Psa 54:1-7; Psa 55; Psa 56:1-13; Psa 57:1-11; Psa 59; Psa 60:1-12; Psa 61:1-8; Psa 62:1-12; Psa 63:1-11; Psa 64:1-10; Psa 69; Psa 70:1-5; Psa 71; Psa 74; Psa 77; Psa 79:1-13; Psa 80; Psa 83; Psa 84:1-12; Psa 86; Psa 88; Psa 89; Psa 94; Psa 102; Psa 109; Psa 120:1-7; Psa 123:1-4; Psa 129:1-8; Psa 137:1-9; Psa 140:1-13; Psa 141:1-10; Psa 142:1-7; Psa 143:1-12
Didactic Psalms
Psa 1:1-6; Psa 5:1-12; Psa 7; Psa 9; Psa 10; Psa 11:1-7; Psa 12:1-8; Psa 14:1-7; Psa 15:1-5; Psa 17:1-15; Psa 24:1-10; Psa 25; Psa 32:1-11; Psa 34; Psa 36:1-12; Psa 37; Psa 39:1-13; Psa 49; Psa 50; Psa 52:1-9; Psa 53:1-6; Psa 58:1-11; Psa 73; Psa 75:1-10; Psa 82:1-8; Psa 84:1-12; Psa 90; Psa 91; Psa 92:1-15; Psa 94; Psa 101:1-8; Psa 112:1-10; Psa 119; Psa 121:1-8; Psa 125:1-5; Psa 127:1-5; Psa 128:1-6; Psa 131:1-3; Psa 133:1-3
Historical Psalms
Psa 78; Psa 105; Psa 106 Prayer, Imprecatory
Intercessional Psalms
Psa 20:1-9; Psa 67:1-7; Psa 122:1-9; Psa 132; Psa 144:1-15 Jesus, The Christ, Messiah, Messianic Psalms
Penitential Psalms
Psa 6:1-10; Psa 25; Psa 32:1-11; Psa 38; Psa 51; Psa 102; Psa 130:1-8; Psa 143:1-12
Psalms of Praise
Psa 8:1-9; Psa 19:1-14; Psa 24:1-10; Psa 29:1-11; Psa 33; Psa 47:1-9; Psa 50; Psa 65:1-13; Psa 66; Psa 76:1-12; Psa 77; Psa 93:1-5; Psa 95:1-11; Psa 96:1-13; Psa 97:1-12; Psa 99:1-9; Psa 104; Psa 111:1-10; Psa 113:1-9; Psa 114:1-8; Psa 115; Psa 134:1-3; Psa 139; Psa 147; Psa 148:1-14; Psa 150:1-6
Prophetic Psalms
Psa 2:1-12; Psa 16:1-11; Psa 22; Psa 40; Psa 45; Psa 68; Psa 69; Psa 72; Psa 87:1-7; Psa 97:1-12; Psa 110:1-7; Psa 118
Psalms of Thanksgiving:
– For God’s goodness to Israel
Psa 21:1-13; Psa 46:1-11; Psa 48:1-14; Psa 65:1-13; Psa 66; Psa 68; Psa 76:1-12; Psa 81; Psa 85:1-13; Psa 98:1-9; Psa 105; Psa 124:1-8; Psa 126:1-6; Psa 129:1-8; Psa 135; Psa 136; Psa 149:1-9
– For God’s goodness to good men
Psa 23:1-6; Psa 34; Psa 36:1-12; Psa 91; Psa 100:1-5; Psa 103; Psa 107; Psa 117:1-2; Psa 121:1-8; Psa 145; Psa 146:1-10
For God’s mercies to individuals
Psa 9; Psa 18; Psa 30:1-12; Psa 34; Psa 40; Psa 75:1-10; Psa 103; Psa 108:1-13; Psa 116; Psa 118; Psa 138:1-8; Psa 144:1-15
Fuente: Nave’s Topical Bible
Psalms
The book of Psalms is a collection of hymns, or sacred songs, in praise of God, and consists of poems of various kinds. They are the productions of different persons, but are generally called the Psalms of David, because a great part of them was composed by him, and David himself is distinguished by the name of the Psalmist. We cannot now ascertain all the Psalms written by David, but their number probably exceeds seventy; and much less are we able to discover the authors of the other Psalms, or the occasions upon which they were composed. A few of them were written after the return from the Babylonian captivity. The titles prefixed to them are of very questionable authority; and in many cases they are not intended to denote the writer but refer only to the person who was appointed to set them to music. David first introduced the practice of singing sacred hymns in the public service of God; and it was restored by Ezra. The authority of the Psalms is established not only by their rank among the sacred writings, and by the unvaried testimony of ages, but likewise by many intrinsic proofs of inspiration. Not only do they breathe through every part a divine spirit of eloquence, but they contain numberless illustrious prophecies that were remarkably accomplished, and are frequently appealed to by the evangelical writers. The sacred character of the whole book is established by the testimony of our Saviour and his Apostles, who, in various parts of the New Testament, appropriate the predictions of the Psalms as obviously apposite to the circumstances of their lives, and as intentionally composed to describe them. The veneration for the Psalms has in all ages of the church been considerable. The fathers assure us, that in the earlier times the whole book of Psalms was generally learned by heart; and that the ministers of every gradation were expected to be able to repeat them from memory. These invaluable Scriptures are daily repeated without weariness, though their beauties are often overlooked in familiar and habitual perusal. As hymns immediately addressed to the Deity, they reduce righteousness to practice; and while we acquire the sentiments, we perform the offices of piety; while we supplicate for blessings, we celebrate the memorial of former mercies; and while in the exercise of devotion, faith is enlivened by the display of prophecy. Josephus asserts, and most of the ancient writers maintain, that the Psalms were composed in metre. They have undoubtedly a peculiar conformation of sentences, and a measured distribution of parts. Many of them are elegiac, and most of David’s are of the lyric kind. There is no sufficient reason however to believe, as some writers have imagined, that they were written in rhyme, or in any of the Grecian measures. Some of them are acrostic; and though the regulations of the Hebrew measure are now lost, there can be no doubt, from their harmonious modulation, that they were written with some kind of metrical order; and they must have been composed in accommodation to the measure to which they were set. (See Poetry of the Hebrews.) The Hebrew copies and the Septuagint version of this book contain the same number of Psalms; only the Septuagint translators have, for some reason which does not appear, thrown the ninth and tenth into one, as also the one hundred and fourteenth and one hundred and fifteenth, and have divided the one hundred and sixteenth and one hundred and forty-seventh each into two.
It is very justly observed by Dr. Allix, that, although the sense of near fifty Psalms be fixed and settled by divine authors, yet Christ and his Apostles did not undertake to quote all the Psalms they could, but only to give a key to their hearers, by which they might apply to the same subjects the Psalms of the same composure and expression. With regard to the Jews, Bishop Chandler very pertinently remarks, that they must have understood David, their prince, to have been a figure of Messiah. They would not otherwise have made his Psalms part of their daily worship; nor would David have delivered them to the church to be so employed, were it not to instruct and support them in the knowledge and belief of this fundamental article. Were the Messiah not concerned in the Psalms, it would have been absurd to celebrate twice a day, in their public devotions, the events of one man’s life, who was deceased so long ago, as to have no relation now to the Jews and the circumstances of their affairs; or to transcribe whole passages from them into their prayers for the coming of the Messiah. Upon the same principle it is easily seen that the objections, which may seem to lie against the use of Jewish services in Christian congregations, may cease at once. Thus it may be said, Are we concerned with the affairs of David and of Israel? Have we any thing to do with the ark and the temple? They are no more. Are we to go up to Jerusalem, and to worship on Sion? They are desolated, and trodden under foot by the Turks. Are we to sacrifice young bullocks according to the law? The law is abolished, never to be observed again. Do we pray for victory over Moab, Edom, and Philistia; or for deliverance from Babylon? There are no such nations, no such places in the world. What then do we mean, when, taking such expressions into our mouths, we utter them in our own persons, as parts of our devotions, before God? Assuredly we must mean a spiritual Jerusalem and Sion; a spiritual ark and temple; a spiritual law; spiritual sacrifices; and spiritual victories over spiritual enemies; all described under the old names, which are still retained, though old things are passed away, and all things are become new, 2Co 5:17. By substituting Messiah for David, the Gospel for the law, the church Christian for that of Israel, and the enemies of the one for those of the other, the Psalms are made our own. Nay, they are with more fulness and propriety applied now to the substance, than they were of old to the shadow of good things then to come, Heb 10:1. For let it not pass unobserved, that when, upon the first publication of the Gospel, the Apostles had occasion to utter their transports of joy, on their being counted worthy to suffer for the name of their Lord and Master, which was then opposed by Jew and Gentile, they brake forth into an application of the second Psalm to the transactions then before their eyes, Act 4:25. The Psalms, thus applied, have advantages which no fresh compositions, however finely executed, can possibly have; since, beside their incomparable fitness to express our sentiments, they are at the same time memorials of, and appeals to, former mercies and deliverances; they are acknowledgments of prophecies accomplished; they point out the connection between the old and new dispensations, thereby teaching us to admire and adore the wisdom of God displayed in both, and furnishing while we read or sing them, an inexhaustible variety of the noblest matter that can engage the contemplations of man.
Very few of the Psalms, comparatively, appear to be simply prophetical, and to belong only to Messiah, without the intervention of any other person. Most of them, it is apprehended, have a double sense, which stands upon this ground and foundation, that the ancient patriarchs, prophets, priests, and kings, were typical characters, in their several offices, and in the more remarkable passages of their lives, their extraordinary depressions and miraculous exaltations foreshowing him who was to arise as the head of the holy family, the great prophet, the true priest, the everlasting king. The Israelitish polity, and the law of Moses, were purposely framed after the example and shadow of things spiritual and heavenly; and the events which happened to the ancient people of God were designed to shadow out parallel occurrences, which should afterward take place in the accomplishment of man’s redemption, and the rise and progress of the Christian church, (See Prophecy.) For this reason, the Psalms composed for the use of Israel, and by them accordingly used at the time, do admit of an application to us, who are now the Israel of God, Gal 6:16, and to our Redeemer, who is the King of this Israel. It would be an arduous and adventurous undertaking to attempt to lay down the rules observed in the conduct of the mystic allegory, so diverse are the modes in which the Holy Spirit has thought proper to communicate his counsels to different persons on different occasions; inspiring and directing the minds of the prophets according to his good pleasure; at one time vouchsafing more full and free discoveries of future events; while, at another, he is more obscure and sparing in his intimations. From hence, of course, arises a great variety in the Scripture usage of this kind of allegory as to the manner in which the spiritual sense is couched under the other. Sometimes it can hardly break forth and show itself at intervals through the literal, which meets the eye as the ruling sense, and seems to have taken entire possession of the words and phrases. On the contrary, it is much oftener the capital figure in the piece, and stands confessed at once by such splendour of language, that the letter, in its turn, is thrown into shade, and almost totally disappears. Sometimes it shines with a constant equable light, and sometimes it darts upon us on a sudden, like a flash of lightning from the clouds. But a composition is never more truly elegant and beautiful, than when the two senses, alike conspicuous, run parallel together through the whole poem, mutually corresponding with and illustrating each other.
Thus the establishment of David upon his throne, notwithstanding the opposition made to it by his enemies, is the subject of the second Psalm. David sustains in it a twofold character, literal and allegorical. If we read over the Psalm first with an eye to the literal David, the meaning is obvious, and put out of all dispute by the sacred history. There is indeed an uncommon glow in the expression, and sublimity in the figures; and the diction is now and then exaggerated, as it were, on purpose to intimate and lead us to the contemplation of higher and more important matters concealed within. In compliance with this admonition, if we take another survey of the Psalm, as relative to the person and concerns of the spiritual David, a nobler series of events instantly rises to view, and the meaning becomes more evident, as well as exalted. The colouring, which may perhaps seem too bold and glaring for the king of Israel, will no longer appear so, when laid upon his great antitype. After we have thus attentively considered the subject apart, let us look at them together, and we shall behold the full beauty and majesty of this most charming poem. We shall perceive the two senses very distinct from each other, yet conspiring in perfect harmony, and bearing a wonderful resemblance in every feature and lineament, while the analogy between them is so exactly preserved, that either may pass for the original, from whence the other was copied. New light is continually cast upon the phraseology, fresh weight and dignity are added to the sentiment, till gradually ascending from things below to things above, from human affairs to those which are divine, they bear the great important theme upward with them, and at length place it in the height and brightness of heaven. What has been observed with regard to this Psalm, may also be applied to the seventy-second; the subject of which is of the same kind, and treated in the same manner. Its title might be, The Inauguration of Solomon. The scheme of the allegory is alike in both; but a diversity of matter occasions an alteration in the diction. For whereas one is employed in celebrating the magnificent triumphs of victory, it is the design of the other to draw a pleasing picture of peace, and of that felicity which is her inseparable attendent. The style is therefore of a more even and temperate sort, and more richly ornamented. It abounds not with those sudden changes of the person speaking which dazzle and astonish; but the imagery is borrowed from the delightful scenes with which creation cheers the sight, and the pencil of the divine artist is dipped in the softer colours of nature. And here we may take notice how peculiarly adapted to the genius of this kind of allegory the parabolical style is, on account of that great variety of natural images to be found in it. For as these images are capable of being employed in the illustration of things divine and human, between which there is a certain analogy maintained, so they easily afford that ambiguity which is necessary in this species of composition, where the language is applicable to each sense, and obscure in neither; it comprehends both parts of the allegory, and may be clearly and distinctly referred to one or the other.
On this book Bishop Horsley remarks:These Psalms go, in general, under the name of the Psalms of David. King David gave a regular and noble form to the musical part of the Jewish service. He was himself a great composer, both in poetry and music, and a munificent patron, no doubt, of arts in which he himself so much delighted and excelled. The Psalms, however, appear to be compositions of various authors, in various ages; some much more ancient than the times of King David, some of a much later age. Of many, David himself was undoubtedly the author; and that those of his composition were prophetic, we have David’s own authority, which may be allowed to overpower a host of modern expositors. For thus King David, at the close of his life, describes himself and his sacred songs: David, the son of Jesse, said, and the man who was raised up on high, the anointed of the God of Jacob, and the sweet psalmist of Israel, said, The Spirit of Jehovah spake by me, and his word was in my tongue. It was the word, therefore, of Jehovah’s Spirit which was uttered by David’s tongue. But it should seem, the Spirit of Jehovah would not be wanting to enable a mere man to make complaint of his own enemies, to describe his own sufferings just as he felt them, and his own escapes just as they happened. But the Spirit of Jehovah described by David’s utterance what was known to that Spirit only, and that Spirit only could describe. So that, if David be allowed to have had any knowledge of the true subject of his own compositions, it was nothing in his own life, but something put into his mind by the Holy Spirit of God; and the misapplication of the Psalms to the literal David has done more mischief than the misapplication of any other parts of the Scriptures among those who profess the belief of the Christian religion.
The Psalms are all poems of the lyric kind, that is, adapted to music, but with great variety in the style of composition. Some are simply odes. An ode is a dignified sort of song, narrative of the facts, either of public history or private life, in a highly adorned and figured style. But the figure in the Psalms is that which is peculiar to the Hebrew language, in which the figure gives its meaning with as much perspicuity as the plainest speech.
Some are of the sort called elegiac, which are pathetic compositions upon mournful subjects. Some are ethic, delivering grave maxims of life, or the precepts of religion, in solemn, but for the most part simple, strains. Some are enigmatic, delivering the doctrines of religion in enigmata, contrived to strike the imagination forcibly, and yet easy to be understood. In all these the author delivers the whole matter in his own person. But a very great, I believe the far greater, part are a sort of dramatic ode, consisting of dialogues between persons sustaining certain characters. In these dialogue Psalms the persons are frequently the Psalmist himself, or the chorus of priests and Levites, or the leader of the Levitical band, opening the ode with a proem declarative of the subject, and very often closing the whole with a solemn admonition drawn from what the other persons say. The other persons are Jehovah, sometimes as one, sometimes as another, of the three Persons; Christ in his incarnate state, sometimes before, sometimes after, his resurrection; the human soul of Christ as distinguished from the divine essence. Christ, in his incarnate state, is personated sometimes as a priest, sometimes as a king, sometimes as a conqueror; and in those Psalms in which he is introduced as a conqueror, the resemblance is very remarkable between this conqueror in the book of Psalms and the warrior on the white horse in the book of Revelation, who goes forth with a crown on his head, and a bow in his hand, conquering and to conquer. And the conquest in the Psalms is followed, like the conquest in the Revelation, by the marriage of the conqueror. These are circumstances of similitude which, to any one versed in the prophetic style, prove beyond a doubt that the mystical conqueror is the same personage in both.