You are on page 1of 33

PROPITIATION PROSELYTE

Projhetsof Israel, 1882(2!, 1895 ; the special literature is referred In the old Hebrew kingdom the word gZr had a civil
to in the articles on the several prophets. [See also Edersheim, not a religious significance, and it would almost seem
Proph. and Hist. in relation t o fhe Messiah, 1885 ; Kirkpatrick, that a poor Israelite without inheritance might sink to the
The Doctrine of the Propkets, 1892 ; C. G. Montefiore, Relip'on
of the Ancient We6raus (Hibhert Lect.), 1893 ; G. A. Smith, position of gzr, which indeed is scarcely distinguishable
Twelve Prophets, z vols., 1896, 1898 ; F. H.Woods, The Hope from that of the Levite in Judg. 17 8, who went forth to
of lsruel: a Ke+u qf the Argrrnzent from Projhecy, 1896 sojourii @ Y ) where he might find a place. T h e ' exile '
(critical and conciliatory).] W. R. S.
Articles by F h l e r and Von Orelli in PRE, 1st and 2nd
and the restoration' made a change in this as in all
editions respectively. John Smith [the 'Cambridge Platonist 'I, other aspects of Hebrew society. On the one hand
Select Discourses 1660 (Discourse vi., ' Of Prophesie ') ; Kohler, Ezek. 4 7 2 2 and Is. 141 contemplate that the restored
Der Prophetismds der Hebraer u. die Mantik der Griechen in nation shall be recruited by strangers who are received
ihrenz gegenseiiigen Vcrhdltniss (1861). lholuck, Die Pro-
on equal terms ; but, since the Jews returned not as an
~

$heten unddie WeissagunglB (1861). w. R. Smith, Prophecy


In the Schools of the Continent,' Rvit..and For. Reu. 1870 (see independent nation but as a distinct religious community,
2) ; Elmslie, ' 00 Prophetic Perspective,' i6id. 1872 (see 8 25, this implies especially that the sons of the stranger, by
end) ; SchwartzkJpff, Die Prophetischc O#efibarung (1896), joining Israel, observing the Sabbath, and holding fast
and Giesehrecht, Die Berufsbegabung der A Tlichrn Pro-
@ten, 1897 (both works criticise ~osit10ns of other scholars ; to Yahwe's covenant, may gain admission to all the
Giesebrecht's criticism of Kuenen is specially vigorous, but he privileges of the temple and its worship. So it is put
is himself open to criticism) ; Knnig, Der O#efibarufipbegrz# in Is. 5 6 6 J , in marked contrast to the restrictions laid
dez A 7' 2 vols., 1882 (see Giesehrecht, 21-35 ; Konig is, in
fact, soAewhat exuberant in his supernaturalism) . Lotz, Gesch. down in Deut. 2 3 3 7 f . That the views of the prophets
U. Oflenbanmng im A T , 1891 (see KantzsFh's rekew, 7 h . Sf. had practical issue cannot be doubted ; even the foreign
u. KY. 1891, pp. 589-597). G. B. Gray, Growth of the Pro- N E T H f N i M (4.v.)in the second temple were rapidly
phetic Literature,' New U'odd, March 1899, pp. 124-143; s. transformed not merely into good Israelites but into
Michelet [of Christiania], fsruels Projheten als Triger d e r
Oflen6urumg, 1898 ; Kittel, Prophetie u. Weissagung, 1899 ; Levites. The condition of admission to the full
Kanig, Das Berufshawusstsein der A Tlichen Propheten, 'yo ; privileges of an Israelite, in particular to the passover.
Kraetzschniar, Projhet und Seher in alten Israel ( ~ g o r ) . is, according to thc Priestly Code (Ex.1248 Nu. 914),
On Christian prophecy, see Buckmann, ' Ueber die Wunder-
krifte hei den ersten Christen und ihr Erliischen,' in the Ztschr. circumcision.
f: d.ges. lufhev. T h o l . u. Kirche, 1878, pp. 216-255 (learned but T h e free admission of foreigners to the Jewish church
utterly uncritical); Bonwetsch, 'Die Prophetie in apostol. und is a mark of the universalistic tendency which, in spite
nachapostol. Zeitalter,' in the 2tsckr.J kirchl. Wissensch. u.
kirchl. Le6en, 1884~pt. 8, p. 408A,pt. 9, p. 460f:; Harnack, of all the narrownesses of Judaism under the law,
Die Lehre der z w d l f Apostel, 1884, p. 93-137 ; E. C. Selwyn, accompanied the break-up of the old national system.
The Christian Prophets, igor (too ingenious). On the other hand, it presents a different line of transition
T. K . c . ~(5s 1-11, 19 [part], 24-29. 34-47) ; H. G. from the purely civil to the religious meaning ofgiy. It
(a 12J); P. v. ($5 14-18, 19 [part], 20-23); demands that certain rules shall be enforced not only on
J. A. R. (§§ 30-33). Israelites proper but also on strangers sojourning in their
PROPITIATION ( i h a c ~ o c I, Jn. 22 4 1 0 ; ihac- land. They are not to eat blood (1710), commit incest
T H P ~ O N , Rom. 325). See SACRIFICE, R IGHTEOUS- (1826), sacrifice to Moloch ( ~ O Z )or , blaspheme Yahwe
NESS, § 11, also MERCY SEAT, § 6 8 (2416) ; and for murder and other crimes they are to
be answerable to the Hebrew authorities according to
PROSELYTE. It has appeared elsewhere (see Hebrew law (2422).
.~~ AN D SOIOURNER.
STRANGER where the various Hebrew T h e term rpomjAvror, so frequent in Q8 in the sense already

~~~~~?~l~
yahwb in the
and Greek terms will be found) that
gZr in the Priestly code approximates
OT. to its Judaistic use as proselyte (cp
explained, occurs only four times in the N T , Proselytes are
present a t Pentecost (Acts210). one of the
2. Terms ill ' deacons ' was a proselyte ( 6 5 ) ; nit. 2.9 r s refers
also 2 Ch. 3025). Indeed the vir'i NT, etc. to the zeal of the Pharisees in making them;
-I and in Acts 13 43 (Antioch) we have 7th u+o-
yahw2 (;lw WR, d
ot +0/3odpwor T ~ V~ d p i o u ) . who pCmv rrpoqhv'rwv-perhaps a conflate reading But the
repeatedly recurring +o@o6pvor rbv B d v (Acts 10, Cornelius ;
appear in Ps. 1159-11 1182-4 13519f. as a third class 13 76 26. speech a t Antioch in Pisidia) and ucj36pevo~ rbv Br6v
of worshippers of Yahwe. distinct from the house of (1350, womenat Antioch : 16 r4,Lydia; li4,Thessalonica; 17 17,
Israel and the house of Aaron, are probably proselytes- Athens ;18 7, Justns) are probably synonymous with rpomjhvror
(see helow, 0 5), a s are ; q A u s , de Execr. 0 6, etc., and b j h d q c ,
in Acts 13 16, ' men of Israel, and ye that fear God' de Monarch. 5 7, etc., with Philo.
(*Aw~?pes'Iupa+&ar ~ a ol l ~oj3o~pcwoc TAW ! M w ) ; the Conversions to Judaism were not always spontaneous
latter class are clearly such, and so also the 'fearers'
and disinterested. 'The Talmud speaks of 'lion' (cp
[of the Lord] ( o e ~ 6 p e v o r[TLW ~ d p r o v ]in
) the Song of the
3. Methods and 2 K.17 25) and ' Esther' (cp Esth. 8 17)
Three Holy Children, Dan. 333 go. With the exception,
proselytes, who became such through
however, of these late, casual, and vague references, causes of
proselytising. fear or for the sake of profit, and of
proselytes, in the full religious sense of N T times, do
other classes of interested converts
not appear in the OT, and the EV of the O T is entirely
(@ll. 36, Ye6. 246 ap. Jastrow). I n Alexandria, for
justified in always abstaining from the use of ' proselyte '
instance, the Jews were included among the privileged
a s a translation for gZr. T h e way in which the ancient
classes, and men would be attracted to Judaism by the
Israelite giritn and the OT teaching concerning them
prospect of an advantageous political status. Moreover,
developed in the direction of the Jewish proselytes and
the propaganda of the Maccabzan princes was some-
Judaistic ideas about them, may be summarised a s
what Mohammedan in its character. T h e zeal of Simon
follows :-
for the law ( I Macc. 1 3 4 8 14143s) must have induced
Proselyte (rpomjAumr) is the term most frequently adopted many Gentiles to profess Judaism. John Hyrcanus
by the Septuagint, especially in legal passages, to represent the
Hebrew gzr. The gjr or more fully gtr uret&ib, is not any (Jos. "lnt. xiii. 9 1 ) compelled the Idumzeans, Aristo-
'stranger, but a strang& dwelling in a Hebrew community and bulus (xiii. 1 1 3 ) the Ituraeans, and Alexander Jannzeus
enjoying a certain measure of protection. In old time a t least (xiii. 1 5 4 ) many cities, etc., especially in Eastern
the position of such a stranger was no doubt very insecure for
he had no strong kinsmen to take his part, and so, like'the Palestine, to accept Judaism. The inhabitants of Pella
widow and the orphan, with whom many passages of the O T refused, and their city was destroyed. When kings like
associate him, he was liable to oppression. In the law as well as Izates ( A n t . 202) and great nobles became proselytes,
by.the prophets he is commended to the humane regard of his many of their subjects and dependents would naturally
neighbours ; but it would have been quite foreign to antique
ideas to grant him equal rights (see Lev. 25 45 Deut. 23 20). follow suit.
Like the Arabic j Z r , therefore (whose name is at bottom the Many political and social circumstances aided prosely-
same), he must have generally sought to attach himself as a client
to some individual or community able to protect him, and so we 1 [The theory of the foreign origin of the Nethinim however
must understand the metaphor in passages like Ps. 15 I 39 12. may be called in question. In PSALMS (ROOK), $ 2 7 , 'it is main!
tained that 'Nethinim' is a distortion of Ethanim-i.e., the
1 Qpotations from Prof. W. R. Smith's article 'Prophecy' in b'ne Ethan, or Ethanites, corresponding to the bn'e Asaph or
ERR!, vol. 18, are expressly given as such. Asaphitenl
3901 3902
PROSELYTE PROSELYTE
tising, just as, later, they promoted the spread of true; but there are some who have fallen away from
Christianity. T h e Jews were dispersed throughout want of steadfastness.’
all the Mediterranean lands, and involved in many T h e proselytes must everywhere, as at Corinth (Acts
commercial dealings with Gentile neighbours. Thus 18 7), have facilitated the access of Christian missionaries
there were countless opportunities for the missionary to the Gentiles. Christianity had nearly all the attrac-
spirit referred to in Mt. 2315,and, on the other hand, tions which Judaism possessed, and added others of its
the Gentile inquirer could always learn what Judaism own. Moreover, the Hellenising and other liberal
had to teach him. T h e Septuagint was an instrument sections of the Jewish communities seem to have been
of the enthusiasm of the one, and an answer to the for the most part absorbed in the Christian Church.
questions of the other. T h e alliances and wars of the leaving the remnant narrower and more exclusive than
Maccabees and the Herods with Gentile states provided it was before. Hence the zeal for proselytising declined,
occasions of proselytising. The Hellenising and Roman- and proselytes were a less important feature of later
ising proclivities of the Jewish parties and schools Judaism.
represented by the Herods, Philo. and Josephus, rendered Till recently, it was usually said that there were two
them anxious to set Judaism before their foreign patrons classes of proselytes : ( u ) ( p 1 1 ~3 1 2 ) gzri ha:-+’&+,
in the most favourable light. proselytes of righteousness, who u-ere cir-
Moreover, the prevalent scepticism as to the ancient 6. ,.,lasses,
cumcised, and observed the law generally ;
national religions left a void which many were anxious and (6) (i@ 972) gZrihuS-Sd‘ar, prose-
to fill by faith in some new religion, and Judaism met and
this craving. Doubtless some conversions were the proeelfie,,. lytes of the gate, who became worshippers
of the one God, and observed the seven
result of superstition-we read of proselytes converted
so-called Noachic precepts, against idolatry, profanity,
by the advice of a dreamer or interpreter of dreams,-
incest, murder, dishonesty, eating blood or things
but others were due to the response of a religious nature
strangled, and allowing a murderer to live. T h e reality
to religious teaching. Probably, to some extent the
of this classification, however, was challenged and dis-
work of Paul and other apostles illustrates the Jewish
proved in the eighteenth century--e.g., hy Lardner
method of proselytising. Gentiles, too, might often
(see ‘ Proselytes’ in Kitto, DB). Schiirer (GJVPI
attend a synagogue from curiosity, or as inquirers,
and thus become converted. Perhaps, however, the
2 568 n., PI 3127 n., ET ii. 2 317) says : ‘ Throughout the
whole of the literature with which I am acquainted I
propaganda was mainly due to teaching addressed to
have not been able to discover more than one solitary
families or individuals, as when the Jewish merchmt
instance of it [ L e . , the expression iyd 131, namely R.
Ananias converted the mother of Izates. Proselytes
Bechai (belonging to the thirteenth century) in his
would naturally attempt to convert their relations and
Kad ha-Kernach as quoted in Bnxtorfs Lex. col. 410.’
friends.
Proselytes of the gate may therefore be dismissed from
The treatment of the subject in the Priestly Code is
the biblical aspect of the subject.
academical, and is rather concerned with the purity of
The Mishna distinguishes between gt? (GEmHrl
- t h e land and the temde. than with the
p7s 13). a proselyte, and gir t&b, a resident alien, the
exilic literature, within and O T g i r . T h e u e ~ 6 p ~ v of
o r the N T have been identified
without the canon, is almost entirely silent about pro- not only with the mythical proselytes of the gate, but
selytes. This fact, coupled with the condition of the also with t h e g j r t&ib. But this latter identification is
Jews as a subject community, suggests that proselytes unhesitatingly rejected by Schiirer and also by Bertholet,
were comparatively rare during the Persian period. who (334)quotes from Maimonides a statement that no
T h e world-wide dispersion of the Jews during the gir tZ&j was received into Israel after the captivity of
Greek period was evidently followed by much pro- the Eastern tribes.
selytising, and we know that Jewish practices were very Schurer, however (ut sup., ET, 311f.), distinguishes
widely imitated. Josephus (c. Ap. 2 3 9 ) tells us, ‘ There two classes of proselytes : ( a ) @0/3ol;pcvor rbv Rc6v or
is not a single town, Greek, Barbarian, or any other, acj%pcvor rbv Rrbv, God-fearing Gentiles who adopted
nor a single nation, to which the observance of the the Jewish ( L e . , the monotheistic and imageless) mode
Sabbath as it is found among ourselves has not pene- of worship, and attended the Jewish synagogues, but, in
trated; whilst fasting and the burning of lights and the observance of the ceremonial law, restricted them-
many of our laws as to meats are also observed. ’ This selves to certain leading points, and so were regarded
statement is substantially confirmed by many other as outside the fellowship of the Jewish communities’;
references to Judaising practices. Such statements do and (6) rpoo?)Xuror, ‘ who, through circumcision and the
not imply that those who imitated Jewish habits became observance of the law, became completely incorporated
proselytes ; but, doubtless, partial imitation was often a with the Jewish people.’ Schiirer cites the case of Izates
stepping-stone to formal conversion. of Adiabene.’ A Jew named Ananias represented to him
that he could worship God without being circumcised ;
The proselytising zeal of the Jews is spoken o f in Mt. 23 15
and by many Greek and Latin writers. U p to the time o? but another Jew named Eleazar, who claimed to be
Hadrian it was facilitated by the favour generally extended to specially orthodox ( d v v rrqd Td rdrpca BOK& (iKp&p
the Jews by the Roman emperors ; and not only on Semitic soil r t a c ) , insisted on Izates being circumcised, and the king
as at Damascus, where, Josephus (BJ ii. 20 z ) tells us, mos; obeyed him (Jos. Ant. 202). History, of course, shows
of the women were proselytes, but also throughout the Roman
world, many converts were made, especially among women. The that there were not only two, but many grades of
most noted conversion was that bf the royal house of Adiabene sympathy with, imitation of, and conversion to Judaism ;
(Jos. Ant. 202), of which the splendid tomb of Queen Helena, a but Schiirer’s only example suggests that orthodox Jews
little way outside of Jerusalem, still remains a monument.
The preponderance of women was due to the deterring effect only recognised one class of real proselytes, and that
upon men of the necessity of being circumcised. rpoa?)Xwoc, @o,Eotip~voc rbv B d v , and a~/36pcvoc rbv
Rc6v are synonymous. Bertholet (328fl)conies to this
T h e first large bodies of proselytes of whom we read
conclusion, mainly on the ground that Philo and
are the forced converts of the Maccabzean princes.
Josephus only recognise a single class of proselytes,
Then the clause ‘Jews and proselytes ’ in Acts 210
that in Acts neither rpoo+Awor and +o~odperoc nor
seems to apply to the whole of v. gf., and to imply that
rpou7jAuroc and uc~6pevoc occur together to denote
proselytes would usually be found where there was a
separate classes ; and Paul, in his polemic against the
Jewish community. In N T proselytes are referred to
Judaisers, always takes it for granted that circumcision
a t Jerusalem, Caesarea, Antioch in Syria, Antioch in
is indispensable to converts to Judaism.
Pisidia, Philippi, Thessalonica, Athens, Corinth (see
§ 2). Josephus (A?. 2 IO) tells us : ‘ Many Greeks have 1 On the story of Cornelius, ‘one that feared God,’and yet
been converted to our laws ; and some h w e remained was regarded as unclean by Jewish Christians, see CORNELIUS.
3903 3904
PROVERB PROVERBS (BOOK)
One condition, therefore, of becoming a proselyte, was that rapa@oA<). Ps.iS is, it is true, a historical poem ;but it is history
required by the Priestly Code, circumcisiog-to which the later with a purpose.
Jew-h usage adds lustration by immersion in water (fi‘6iMh T h e &jn of I K. 5 12 [432] (11 nli.d,‘songs’) may go under
baptism) and the presentation of a sacrifice (&r6rin).i Th; sither (a) or (6).
immersion, about which there has been a good deal of controversy, ( 7 ) 5 d d~e n o t e s finally any poetical composition.
some maintaining that it came into use later than Christian
baptism, was really a necessary act for one who had been ( a ) A prophecy, as in Nu. 2 3 7 18 2 4 3 I5 2021 23 (all
greviously unclean, and may be held to he involved in the general of B a l a a m ) , a n d Is. 141, c p M i c . 2 4 (11 ‘ 7 2 ; see
entateuchal law of ceremonial washings. The later technical L AMENTATION , I ) , Hab. 2 6 (11 nii*n n&. see above,
name for a heathen who thus joined the theocracy was pisn 11, Ba), E V ‘ p a r a b l e , ’ d rapapoX+. b u t Is. 1 4 4 Bp+jvos.
proselyte of righteousness’ (Sanlr. 966).
( b ) A p a r a b l e , Ezek. 1 7 2 (11 aim), 2 1 5 r-20491 2 4 3 ,
T h e d u t i e s a n d religious privileges of a proselyte were EV ’ p a r a b l e , ’ d ?rapapoX$.
s u b s t a n t i a l l y t h e s a m e a s t h o s e of a Jew (Gal. 5 3 ; ( c ) A historical lay. T h e mZliml of Nu. 21 27
S c h u r e r , 326, B e r t h o l e t , 335). As r e g a r d s civil rights, recall t h e H o m e r i c r h a p s o d i s t s , t h o u g h t h e y s e e m to
proselytes i n Gentile states, a n d e v e n i n t h e R o m a n h a v e recited satirical s o n g s on living p e r s o n s as well,
p r o v i n c e o f J u d a a . w e r e n o t at the m e r c y of Jewish c p A ( p )a n d see P OETICAL L ITERATURE , 5 4 (3).
authorities. In this a n d in o t h e r respects t h e e l a b o r a t e 2. nTt &dih (Ar. &&a to decline, cp ny‘h from Ar. ii;a).
discussions of t h e T a l m u d are a c a d e m i c a l discussions
I n Hab. 2 6 E V renders ni7.n n y i a (6rp&@Xqpa6;s Si<puw)
of an o b s o l e t e j u r i s p r u d e n c e , a n d h a v e little c o n n e c t i o n a taunting proverb ; but the asyndeton in the Hebrew, if not
w i t h t h e a c t u a l status o f proselytes i n N T times. without parallels,isawkward. nii,n may be dispensed with as a
Obiter dicta w h i c h d i s c r i m i n a t e u n f a v o u r a b l y b e t w e e n gloss on thefarer word n&a. See RIDDLE.
t h e J e w a n d t h e proselyte chiefly serve to illustrate 3. raporpra. I n classical Greek Iraporpia means ‘proverb,’
‘by-word’: so E s c h . Ag. 264; Ar. Thcsm. 528; rari 7i)v
t h e s t r o n g a n i m u s which a l a r g e section of post- Ira orpiav ‘as the saying goes,’ Plat. Symp. 222 B.
C h r i s t i a n Jews d i s p l a y e d a g a i n s t proselytising a n d f n N T kreek it means(1) a proverb z Pet. 2 2 2 ; (2) a figurative
proselytes. discourse Jn. 16 25 29 ; (3) a parabli, Jn. 106. Jn. never uses
Schiirer, /ewish People, ii. 2 291.327 : Stapfer, Palestine in the word’Irapa@oA+,and it might have been better had KV in
fhe time of Chvisl, E T , 130.132; Ber- Jn. 106 taken the marginal rendering ‘proverb’ into the text,
6. Literature. tholet, Die SfelZung der Ismeliten u. der just as vice nema in Lk. 4 23 RV has ‘ parable ’ for AV ‘ proverb ’
juden zu den Fremden, 179-349; articles rapa@aA<. raporpla is occasionally used by ‘8 to translate 5g$n,
on 193 and 1: in Jastrow, Did. of Tayg. etc., and Levy, Pr. 1 I 25 I (AN-.) (by Sym., Ps. 78 2 Pr. 25 I Ezek. 12 22, Aq.
Eccles. 12 9 Ezek. 18 z), found also Ecclus. 6 35 8 8 18 29 39 3
N H WB. W. R. S.--W. H. B. 47 ‘7.
PROVERB. The w o r d s so r e n d e r e d in EV are : 4, rrapa@oA<. ‘ Proverb ’ is the AV rendering of aapa&A4 Lk.
4 23 ; but R V renders ‘parable.’ In classical Gk. rapafIoA6
I. &, mGiL The r o o t - m e a n i n g of k n is simple- denotes ( I ) a laying alongside (as of ships in a naval battle),
t o b e like, t o compare 2 - but it b e a r s a n u m b e r of d e r i v e d Polyb. 15 2 13, Diod. 1460; (2) juxtaposition comparison, Phiieb.
33 B, Polyh. i. 2 2 : (3) illustration, analoiy, Isoc. 2 3 0 ~Arirt. )
senses t h e exact r e l a t i o n of which t o t h e r o o t - m e a n i n g Pol. 2 5 24, 61 riv Bqpiov rorrb0aar 7i)v T. ‘ to take our illustra-
a n d t o o n e a n o t h e r is m o r e difficult t o determine. tion from the animal world.’
A. As a g e n e r a l t e r m $do d e n o t e s ( a ) a p r o v e r b or In NT Greek it means ( I ) a figure, illustration-Mk. 4 3 0 Zv
p o p u l a r saying- without definite literary f o r m , a n d rlvc a;+ TapaPoAG BWpev, perhaps also Heb. 11 19 (hut see
comm. nd Zoc.) . (2) figure, image, type, $TLF aapaj3oG a k T ~ V
w i t h no pretension t o be philosophical, b u t a p i t h y KaLpbV rbv &&rqtt&va, Heh. 9 9 : (3) parable, Mt. 132.1 31 37,
characterisation of a n event or s u m m i n g - u p of a n a t u r a l etc. ; Lk. 14 7-11 12-14, are scarcely parables in the strict senseof
law-e.g., I S. 1012 Ezek. 182 ; c p I S. 2 4 1 4 [13] Ezek. the word. IrapaPoAj is by far the commonest rendering of sda
1 2 2 2 (EV proverb,’ d ?rapapoX$). in 6 (e.g., Ps. 782,quoted hlt. 1435). Found also Job 3 4 Wisd.
5 3, and in Ecclus. twelve times.
(p) T h a t a g a i n s t which s u c h a s a y i n g is directed-
A. C. P.
tropically, a p r o v e r b , by-word.
E.g., Dt.2837 1 K . 9 7 z C h . 7 2 0 Jer. 249(ineachcase(I ~ J ’ W ,
PROVERBS (BOOK).
‘by-word’), Ps. 44 15 [141(11 WN’Iiijn, ‘a shaking of the head‘), Title (5 I). Authorship date (5 6 ).
09 13 [121 Ezek. 148 (11 ‘sigjl’)-EV ‘proverb,’6rrapa@oA<, Canonicity (8 a). Process of iormation 6 8 ) .
but I K. 9 7 Erek. 148 d9avrupor. Text and versions (8 3f:). Heb. aphoristic literature (5 9).
B. As a t e c h n i c a l t e r m i n literature denotes; Form (5 5
). Bibliography (5 IO).
( a ) A s e n t e n t i o u s m a x i m , the u n i t i n t h e a g g r e g a t i o n of The Massoretic title i s ‘ P r o v e r b s of S o l o m o n ’
w h i c h t h e n o t v e r y philosophical, a l w a y s empirical, (?I&’ h ’ D , Mi&? &”8mih), i n t h e T a l m u d and l a t e r
H e b r e w p h i l o s o p h y chiefly consisted. Strictly s p e a k - 1. Title. Jewish w o r k s usually a b r i d g e d to Mi%?. In
i n g , Swo h a s reference t o t h e f o r m i n which s u c h a t h e T a l m u d t h e b o o k is a l s o c i t e d s i m p l y by
s e n t e n c e w a s e x p r e s s e d , t h a t of a distich a 6-the t h e n a m e o f S o l o m o n ( D h k .&e:, ch. 6 ) , or a s o n e of
j u x t a p o s i t i o n o f a a n d b conveying b y c o m p a r i s o n or t h e W r i t i n g s or H a g i o g r a p h a (Ab. Nathan, ch. 2 ) , and
c o n t r a s t t h e m o r a l lesson required. often w i t h o u t n a m e .
Thus the 376 couple,ts in Pr. 10 1.2216 are called (10 I) $dn d h a s a l o n g e r f o r m : Proverb (Taporpfac)of Solomon
(EV ‘proverbs, Q5 om,.); cp 1I (EV ‘proverbs, 6 son of David who reigned in Israel, a n d with this agree
raporpiar), 1 6 (EV ‘proverb, @ rapapohri, parallels being Syr. a n d Vg., e x c e p t t h a t t h e y read king of Israel.
nr*in, ‘figure,’ ‘enigma’? cp Ecclus.47 17 and Hab. 2 6 *i1-1
ovxn. ‘words of the wise,’ cp Pr. 22 17 and nypn, ‘dark say- The s u p e r s c r i p t i o n in o u r Gk. M S S is s i m p l y Tapocplat
ings’) 25 I (EV ‘proverbs,’ ‘8 a l aa&;a‘ 1AKC.a. raporpiat] a l ( a p p a r e n t l y = R a b b i n i c a l Mi%) ; the s u b s c r i p t i o n is T.
&&&~LTOL) 267-9 (EV ‘parable’) Job1312 (11 pl?l,, ‘memorable [B], r. Zah. [N], r. Zoh. [A], a. ZoX. aapb b s 8 o p j -
saying’) Eccles. 1 2 9 (EV ‘proverbs,’ 6 r a p , ¶ o A a i , parallels K o w a [C]. In t h e Vg. title t h e b o o k is called Par-abole
nnN vi,p n TI^, id? i i n z nnN $ m i ) . SoZomonis, i n t h e superscription Liber Prozrr6iorum
( p ) T h e distich overflowing into a tristich. Prov. quem Heb. misle vocant. i n t h e s u b s c r i p t i o n Liber Pro-
2710 2810, a tetrastich. 2618 J , e v e n a d e c a s t i c h , verbiorum.
2723-27-bn a c q u i r e s the s e n s e of a s e n t e n t i o u s or These r e a d i n g s s h o w that i n the f o u r t h century of our
d i d a c t i c poem. era t h e c o m m o n designation of t h e b o o k was Proverbs,
Such as we have, e.g., in Prov. 31 103-see Job27 I 29 I (EV a n d t h e title i n t h e Heb. text Proverbs of Solomon;
‘parable,’ Q5 rpooip~ov),Ps. 495 (11 m*n), 782 (EV ‘parable,’ Q5 1 M&im might almost he rendered ‘bards ’. the m&l may
be the poet, the ‘Dichter,’ the setter in order d words or ideas,
perhaps he who places side by side the two halves of his verse
1 Mishna PZsach. 88, K%thbtk2 I. cp Germ. ‘dichten,’ A.S. ‘dihtan,’ to arrange, set in order. Old
2 Attemp& (see Ges. Thes., S . V . ; Fleischer in Del. Pr. 43f: :
English verse has the same well-defined break in the middle of
Halevy, Revue desktudts /uives, 1885, p. 302) to derive the the line that we find in Hebrew. And $n in Nu. 23 7 may
two notions of comparing and ruling from a single root are mean simply ‘poem ’-‘he uttered his poem,’ a stereotyped
futile-as witness their very variety. We must assume two phrase introducing a fresh rhapsody, like the rbv 6’&~apr,36pcvqs
distinct roots ( I ) ‘ t o he like,’ Heb. $&, Ass. macafu, Syr. rpou&$q, etc., of Homer. The author of Job29 borrowed it
nzcfal, Ar. mnfhalp, and ( 2 ) ‘ t o bear rule,’ connected possibly (29 I). and the redactor borrowed it from him (27 I ) ; see Budde,
with Ass. mairllu, to shine ’ (see Del. Heb. Lung. 55). ad Zoc.
125 3905 3906
PROVERBS (BOOK) PROVERBS (BOOK)
the expression in the Vss., 'son of David, king of prophetical writings, and, among the wisdom books, in
Israel,' may be a scribal insertion (perhaps suggested &iht?kth ;but it abounds in minor inaccuracies. Many
by the M T title of K8hPZeth). It is probable, though of its particular words have been deformed; lines of
not certain, that the ascription to Solomon belonged to couplets have been misplaced ; not a few passages defy
the original title (cp the titles of KChPLeth and Wid. translation or emendation ; and some paragraphs (e.g.,
SOL) : it may have been given to the earliest collection, four short sections in chap. 6 ) now stand out of their
10 1 - 2 2 16, and then have been retained when additions proper connection. On the other hand, there are few
were made, or the earliest title may have been ' P r o - insertions or modifications in the interests of theological
verbs,' and the reference to Solomon (based on I K. ideas. T h e most important instance of such editorial
5 12 [432]) may have been added by Jewish editors ; in revision is found in the paragraph 35-10, which is a
the discussions of the book a t the Synod of Jamnia the theological parallel to the ethical paragraph 3 1-4; and
name of Solomon does not occur, but the authorship 11 7 and 1 4 3 2 are perhaps other instances.' T h e
may have been taken for granted. character of the thought seems to have protected the
In early Christian writings Prov. is frequently cited with the book from violent alterations. Dealing almost ex-
formula : ' Solomon says.' In a number of cases also it is desig- clusively with ethical facts and principles, it rarely
nated by the term 'wisdom' (uo+ia) or hy some expression in
which the word 'wisdom ' occurs ; but it is doubtful whether comes into conflict with later thought.
such appellations are titles proper or merely descriptive phrases. I n the passage in chap. 7, which called forth discussion a t
I t appears to be called simply Sophra by Melito (in Eus. HE Jamnia, there has been no attempt a t alteration. I t is doubtful
iv. 26 1 3 8 ) and in Const. A). 1 IO ; hut, even if these readings whether we can recognise any deliberate attempt to introduce
are genuine they hardly prove a general Christian usage. into the book a doctrine of ethical immortality (as for example
T h e expression $ T ( I Y & ~ C T O F uo+'a (Clem.Rom. COY. 157, Eus. in 117 14 32 2). The position of Proverbs in the lesi sacred g r o u i
HE 4 2 2 , etc.), which is used also of Ecclus. and Wisd. Sol., of K Z h i 6 i n t appears to have worked in two ways : it relieved
appears to refer not to Proverbs a s a hook, but t o Wisdom the book from theological revision, but gave occasion to many
as the 'all-virtuous' speaker and teacher.1 If we ma credit verbal errors from carelessness of scribes.
Hegesippus, indeed (in Eus. HZ3 4 zz), the designation '$isdom The following Ancient Versions of Proverbs have
is of Jewish origin (from unwritten tradition) ; but of this there come down to us : Greek (Sept., fragments of Aquila,
is no proof-the expression 'books of wisdom' which is used in
a Rabbinical treatise (Thephath B&66 Bathra, 146) of Proverbs
and Ecclesiastes appears merely to characterise these books by
the nature of their material. In any case the infrequency of the
4;e5~~~~ Symmachus, Theodotion, and of several
anonymous translations); Old Latin (frag-
ments), and Jerome ; Aramaic (Peshitta,
appellation makes it probable that it is a description, not a
title proper. The prominence of the idea of wisdom in Proverbs Hexaplar Syr., Targum) ; Coptic ; to which may be
accounts naturally for such a designation of the hook.2 added : Ethiopic and Arabic.$
At the Synod of Jamnia (about 100 A. D. ; see C ANON , The Septuagint, the most ancient, interesting, and
J 5 5 ) the recognition of the book as one of the KBttibim valuable of the versions of Proverbs, is given in the
a. Canonicity. (Hagiographa) was opposed on the principal uncials (BKAV, and fragments in C ) and in a
grouiids that it contained contradic- number of cursives (collated by Holmes and Parsons).
tions ( 2 6 4 J ) and that some of its descriptions were Its text, however, is not in good condition; notwith-
indecent ( 7 7 - 2 0 ) . The first objection was set aside standing the work so far done on it, a critical edition (a
(Shab. 30 6) by referring 26 4 ( ' answer not a fool accord- necessary preliminary to its best use for the re-establish-
ing to his folly ') to worldly things, and 265 ( ' answer a ment of the Heb. text) is still lacking. Many of
fool, etc.') to things religious ; this exegesis is incorrect, its readings are corrupt, it has many passages not
but the explanation was accepted. The apparently found in the Heb., and its arrangement of the divisions
unseemly passages were interpreted allegorically ; see of the book is peculiar. It is doubtless a purely Jewish
A-bith NZfhdn, ch. 1 (in the common recension), and production ; there is no clear trace of Christian revision."
cp ch. 2 of the same work in which amorous descrip- The manner of its origination may be suggested by the
tions in Canticles are explained as references to Israel. example of the younger Jesus, the translator of Ben-
After the discussions at Jamnia the canonical character Sira. H e rendered his grandfather's work into Greek,
of the book was not questioned by the Jews, and it has in response, he believed, to a popular demand in
not since been called in question. It is quoted often in Alexandria ; and so the Jews of the city doubtless desired
N T and Talmud, and by Christian and Jewish writers to have Proverbs in Gk. form. Of the further history
generally. The citations in N T are almost all of them of the version we know little or nothing. It is doubt-
after the Gk. version, and are usually free; the book ful whether there was one translator or many; there
was evidently much read, and no attempt was made by are, however, no such differences in style and accuracy
N T writers to give its precise words.s As to its posi- in the different parts as clearly to suggest the presence
tion. the better attested M T arrangement places it next cf mnre than one hand. In general it appears to repre-
after Pss. and Job. sent fairly a Hebrew text-presumably an Egyptian text
So in Ba6. Bath. 146 Tg. a nnmber of Spanish Hebrew of about IOO B.C. In certain cases this text differed
MSS and in Baer-Delitzich ' gut in some Hebrew MSS (mostly from that on which our Massoretic text is based. Of
German) it stands next to Pkalms (so in Hahn). the M T order
was probablydetermined by the length of the bdoks. T h e MSS the Greek additions the most seem to be translations
of 65 early adopted an arrangement according to contents putting from Hebrew ; but some appear to have been composed
the poetical books next to the historical (abandoning the'division originally in Greek.
into the three canons), and Proverbs next after Psalms (Melito, The natural inference is that there was in circulation a con-'
in Eus. HE, 4 2 6 ; @B, etc.),4 and this order is followed in Penh. siderable mass of aphoristic material, out of which our book of
Syr.; Jerome's order is Job, Psalms, Proverbs. Among snc- Proverbs (whether Heb. or Gk.) gives selections. This does
ceeding writers there is considerable diversity ; modern versions not necessarily imply that there were different recensions of the
adopt the arrangement of Jerome. See C ANON . Heb. book in Palestine or in Egypt (though this is possible,
I n respect of accuracy the Massoretic text of Proverbs and even probable) : but it helps to explain the difference in
text. occupies a midway position among the material between the Gk. and the Hebrew. I t is also possible
3. that the Greek translators or later Greek scribes simply inserted
OT books. It has not been subiected in the book new material.
to the sweeping revision which we find in certain of the It is not likely that Proverbs and Ben-Sira were the
1 Cp Frankenberg, Die Sp&Ac, EinZ., 5 I. only parcemiac productions of the time ; in these books,
2 For a late occurrence of the name noln:1 'IDD (in a synagogal indeed, there are intimations of the existence of other
prayer of the 12th cent.) see H. Deutsch, Die Spn2cAc SaZ. nach works of the kind (Pr. 2 4 2 3 Ecclus. 391-11), and in the
d. Atrfmsung i m TaZm. u. Midr.
3 For details see works on biblical qootations. The biblio- 1 Cp Kautzsch, ' Proverbs,' in SBOT.
graphy up to 1884 is given in Toy, Quotations; since then have 2 In both of these passages the Hebrew text is uncertain;
appeared Johnson, Quotations, 1896 ; Dittmar V T in Novo, LB's reading is probably to be adopted in the second, but not in
1899 ' Huhn A TZfcke Cifafe 1900. On quotakons from LB in the first.
N T i n d in e k l y Christian wriiings see Swece, Introd. to the OT 3 For details of editions of Versions see art. 'Bibeluber-
in Greek, and the bibliography there given. setzungen' in PREP).
4 I n 65.4 the order is: Psalms, Job, Proverbs: see Swete 4 The patristic writers interpret it in a Christian sense, but do
Introd. not change the text.
3907 3908
PROVERBS (BOOK) PROVERBS (BOOK)
schools aphoristic sayings were doubtless cited , and indicated in M T (and also in 6). are as follows :A.
commented on. I n this way there probably arose a 5. Form. (chaps. 1-9). A series of discourses, descrip-
tradition of parcemiac interpretation, which would be tions of the nature and function of wisdom and
of various types, reflecting the various directions of warnings against robbery and unchastity (327-35 61-19
Alexandrian Jewish thought. I n the Gk. Proverbs we and 97-12 are misplaced ; the two first belong in iii. or
find allegorising interpretations (as in 2 1 6 ) but no iv., the last belongs in ii. ). ii. (101-22 16). A book of
definite evidence of rigorous legalism.’ No doubt the aphoristic couplets on the conduct of life. iii. (22 17-24 2 2
hermeneutical tradition was less well established in the a n d 2423-34). Two collections of quatrains, in which
renderings of the Wisdom-books than in those of the there is a wider range of subjects than in the preceding
Torah and the Prophets, and this fact may account in division. iv. (25-29). A collection of couplets. v.
part for some of the incorrect translations in 6 ’ s (30 f.). A miscellaneous collection, having the ap-
version of Proverbs ; but unsatisfactory renderings pearance of an appendix : chap. 30 contains a dictum
occur.throughout 6 , and must be referred in part to on the limitations of human knowledge, one on the
other causes, such as defective Heb. MSS, ignorance certainty of G o d s word, a prayer for preservation from
of Heb., and corruption of the Gk. text. the extremes of poverty and riches, and a group of
It is evident, however, that there was great freedom in the tetrads consisting of observations o n nature and life
treatment of the Heb. text by translators, and it is to such ( v . 32 f. stand by themselves); chap. 31 consists of
freedom or caprice that some critics refer @‘s arrangement of
sub-sections in Pr. 22-31, which is as follows : 22 17-2422 30 1-14 two longer passages, one a code of conduct for kings,
44 23-34 30 15-33 31 1-9 25-29 31 10-31. In this arrangement an the other a description of a model housewife.’
order not wholly unnatural is observable : first come strophic ( E ) Rhythm-The material of Proverbs, as far as
pass&es, ascribed presumaby to the ‘sages, then ‘miscel- regards its contents, though not poetical, is gnomic,
laneous instructions [or, proverbs] of Solomon,’ finally the
description of the ideal housewife. The order may he due to and its literary form is that which appears t o have been
the Gk. editor or as the subsections probably circulated in common in both poetical and proverbial utterances
separate form 2nd hay have been arranged variously by Heh. among the Hebrews from a n early time. T h e norm is
scribes, he may have found it in a Heb. MS.3
a couplet, with parallelism of lines ; quatrains are
sm of the Gk. text we have the Coptic
common, and there are, less commonly, longer
and Hexaplar Syriac versions, to which may be added
strophes ; triplets a r e rare. T h e line in Proverbs has
the fragments of the Old Latin, the Ethiopic and
usually three beats (a form which may be called ternary),
Arabic translations. and a few verses (91-11) of a sometimes two (binary), sometimes four (quaternary).
Christian Aramaic translation (in Land, Anecdot.
T h e determination of the number of beats is matter of
S y r . 4). pronunciation and therefore to some extent arbitrary ;
The Sahidic Coptic MS ed. by Ciasca contains about half of
Proverbs. It follows the Gk. closely, giving the passages but it may be said with probability that binary and
which @ has in addition to our Heb. (and also some which are quaternary lines are to be regarded with suspicion. I n
in neither Gk. nor Heh.). So far it has not heen identified with a few cases it is difficult to detect rhythm a t all ; but in
any recension of Q 3 (the Hesychian naturally suggests itself),
nor shown to follow any particular MS : and the same remark such cases there is ground for supposing the trouble to
appears to hold of the Bohairic material hitherto puhlished.4 The be in the text.P
Hexaplar Syriac (ed. Ceriani) preserves (how precisely it is The rhythmical characteristics of the different parts of the
hardly possible to say) Origen’s diacritical marks, and in the hook are as follows:-i. consists mostly of quatrains,. wiFh
margin cites passages from other Gk. translations; it thus in synonymous parallelism (3 27-35 9 8 are misplaced) ; In 11.
many cases enables us to distinguish additions to @‘s text. (couplets) the form is antithetic in 10-15, comparison (with some
As to the Ethiopic version, it is a question how far it is based antitheses) in 16 1-22 1 6 ; iii. (quatrains), except 24 16, 1s
on the Septuagint ; its age is still undetermined, and it has as synonymous; in ir. (couplets) the form is comparison (or a
yet contributed nothing to the identification of an Egyptian single sentence) in 25-27, whilst the second half (28 29) is nearly
recension of the Greek version. The Arabic rendering of Q3 equally divided between antithesis and comparison (or single
(in Walton’r PoZyfl., and ed. Lagarde) is not without value. sentence); v. (quatrains and longer strophes) is synonymous.
The Old Latin fragments are too few to be of great service.5 I t appears that the distichal aphorisms are mostly
T h e fragments of other Gk. verss. based on the antithetic, but are sometimes comparisons or single
Heb. (given in Field, Hex.) represent our MT, and sentences, and that the longer discourses and the
rarely furnish critical aid, though they are sometinies quatrains prefer the synonymous form. T h e rhythmical
lexicographically useful. Nearly the same thing is true form is definite and, in general, well maintained, a n d
of the Latin Vulgate ; but in its case the question of may be appealed to for criticism of the text.
text is more complicated ; it represents in general our ( c ) Composite Character. -From the divisions in-
MT, but with occasional variations which suggest a dicated in the text and from the variations in the
different form from ours, and here and there it shows rhythmical form it may probably he inferred that the
dependence on the Septuagint (reproducing, probably, book is composite in origin.
the Old-Latin). Its interpretations are of interest as ( d ) The il1iE.l.-Proverbial sayings, brief formula-
giving in part the Jewish tradition of the time ; but it tions of experience and observation, appear to have
cannot be rated high as a n aid in the exposition of been current among the Israelites, as they are among
Proverbs. The history of the Peshitta Syr. text is still all other peoples. T h e examples in O T are few but
more difficult ; whilst based on MT, it has been con- sufficient t o show the usage; see I S. 1012 (=1924).
siderably affected by @, and the details of its revision and apparently 2 S. 58 2018 2 4 1 4 [13] ; a n allied form
a r e obscure. is the riddle (Judg. 14 14), and c p Lk. 4 2 3 Jn. 437 2 Pet.
The Targum, in its present form, generally follows the Pesh. 2 ~ 2 .These~ simple sayings were sometimes in ordinary
Syriac, yet sometimes gives MT against Syr. ; apparently it
has been revised after the Heh., though it is possible that it prose form, sometimes in the form of couplets, one
renders a Syr. text different from that which we have, and line in some way parallel t o the other. I n the latter
that it may he used for criticism of the Peshitta. Saadia case the general name for them is m i f i l , a term which
(ed. Derenbourg) gives the Jewish interpretation of the tenth
century; he is of little or no use far the text, hut abounds in is employed in O T to designate a great variety of
lexicugraphicaland exegetical suggestions.6
( u ) Divi.rions.-The main divisions of the Book, 1 Chajes, in his Prover6ia-Sfadicn, maintains the view that
the central part of the hook (10 1-22 16) consists of .scattered
1 Heidenbeim (in his ?‘ierte@ahrsch-ryf, 1865, 1866) is coupletswhich at one time (though not originally)were arranged,
disposed to see many signs of the influence of Pharisaic ideas ; like Ps. 119, according to the letters of the alphabet, and he
hut the evidence he adduces is not convincing. tries to restore this arrangement. In this attempt he is not
2 So Frankenherg, Dit S#riiclre, Einl. successful (his scheme is highly improbable); hut he suggests
3 For a fragment containing Pr. 23 21-24 35 see The Academy, some good emendations. See also his note in JQR, July, 1900.
Oct. 1892. and Klostermann, Anulecta. 2 Valuable remarks on metrical forms in Proverbs are to be
4 Cp H. Hyvernat, in Rev. Bi61. for 1896. found in Ed. Severs’ treatise on ‘Hehriiische Metrik’ in
6 See Kennedy, Art. ‘ Lat. Verss., The Old,’ in Hastings, Abhnncfluwen der Koniul. Siich. Gesellschnfi dcr Wisssn-
I

BD 3 ; he mentions Pr. 21-423 159-26 1629-1712 197-27 and schafen, ,&I.


some others. 3 The story in Nu. 21 22-35 may be based on an old fable or
6 On the versions, see also TEXT A N D VERSIONS. beast-story; cp Jud. 98-15 and 2 K. 149.
3909 3910
PROVERBS (BOOK) PROVERBS (BOOK)
compositions of distichnl form, and in fact seems to that he did not write Eccles. and Cant., it must be
signify a ‘ distichal composition ’ ; for the various admitted, in spite of the tradition, that it is possible he
applications of the term see Ezek. 1 8 2 215 [204g], did not write Proverbs.
172 Dt.2837 Hab.26 Mic.24 Nu.237 Ps.782 Job (6) In 30 I 31 I two other names of authors are given,
291. Though Proverbs now contains gnomic dis- Agur ben-Yakeh (Jakeh) and Lemuel (or Lemuel’s
courses, the title mGZZ seems to have referred originally mother). C p ITHIEL,LEMUEL. Agur (if the word is
to a collection of aphorisms (101-32 16). a proper name) must be supposed to be an otherwise
T h e etymology of mZSZZ‘i? doubtful ; but the probability seems unknown sage, possibly Jewish, possibly non-Jewish.
to be that it signifies juxtaposition’ or ‘similarity,’ with By a change of text h e may he understood to be called a
reference to the things or ideas with which it is concerned.2 ‘ MaSSaite ’ an inhabitant of the region M a s k , of which nothing
As synonyms of 7nZSZl in Pr. 1 6 we have hiddh (31.n) and is known (Gen. 25 14) or a ‘ gnomic writer ’ (m6fe2). Nor is it
m Z h ~ h(&n), terms which appear to signify originally clear how much of :ha{. 30 it is intended to ascribe to him;
‘deflected discourse,’ that is, discourse in which there is allusion probably his dictum is given in m.2-4, which are an ex ression
to something else than that which the words directly express of philosophic (but not irreverent) agnosticism. Lemuef in like
(as, for example, in a riddle, Judg. 14 12 I K. 10 I ) ; later both manner, may be ‘king of MaSSa’ (the renderiflg of RV is inr-
terms were used generally for allegorical, visional, derisive, or possible), or, by change of text, ‘the Maiiaite.
didactic utterances (Ezek. 17 2 Nu. 12 8 Hab. 2 6 Ps. 49 5 [4] 78 2). In M T the counsel to kings is ascribed to Lemuel’s
( a ) Until recent times the greater part of the book mother ; but this may he due to textual corruption-the
.~Authorship.
(chavs. 1-29) has commonly been ascribed to Solomon.
6. Such may be the meaning of the
words may well have been spoken by a sage. In the
present condition of the text we can say of these
general title or superscription in 1I , passages no more than that they belong to the general
though this may-refer to chaps. l-9-only, especially as late material of philosophic and gnomic wisdom (see
Solomon is named as author in the superscriptions in AGUR, L EMUEL , M A SS A ). The ‘ sages ’ are cited in
10 I (in MT, but not in 6 )and 25 I . It is quite possible 2423 and (in MT) in 2217, and are mentioned in 16
that he may have composed or collected proverbs of some etc. ; substantially the whole of chaps. 1-9 is referred
sort, as is stated in I K. 5 1 2 J [432 f.]; but the indica- to them. They represent the body of philosophical
tions in the Book of Proverbs itself (see below, § 7) ethical thought of the later time ; they are the teachers
make it impossible to suppose that he is its author. in the academies and the gnomic writers.
The tradition of authorship, embodied in the O T titles It seems clear that the historical statements of origin,
and in the Talmud, cannot he relied on. It has been in the book and elsewhere, are not conclusive, and that,
conclusively proved that in the Prophets and the Psalms
the titles are not authoritative in themselves, and that
,. Date. for the determination of the date, we must
look to the customs and ideas indicated in
the lists of authors given in the Talmud rest on no the book. The data may be arranged as follows : (u)
good historical or critical foundation. T h e titles in the conception of life ; ( b ) the socialconditions ; (c) the
Proverbs cannot he supposed to form an exception t o ethical ideas ; ( d ) the religious ideas ; ( e ) the relation
the general rule. Some critics, however, while of Proverbs to other hooks; (f)the linguistic char-
admitting the general doubtfulness of O T titles, make acteristics.
an exception in favour of Pr. 251 : a these also are (a)Conception of lz@. -When we compare Proverbs
proverbs of Solomon, which the men of Hezekiah, with other O T hooks, especially with the prophetical
king of Judah, transcribed.’ Whence, they ask, this writings, we are struck by the differences between them
particularity of statement, if it does not rest on good in the way in which life, as a whole, is contemplated
tradition? And it is added that Hezekiah‘s reign was (see W ISDOM LITEHATURE). It is not merely that the
a favourable time for such literary work. Granted that point of view of other books is national, that of Proverbs
such work is conceivable for that time, we have only a individual-they differ also as to what constitutes the
possibility. There is no hint of it in the historical and basis of good living. For the prophets it is loyalty to
prophetical books, and there is much against it. Not the service of YahwB, God of Israel (conceived of as
only was the period in question one of war and unrest, including obedience to his moral law), in distinction
but it is highly probable, if not certain, that the task from other deities; for the sages it is loyalty to the
of collecting and editing writings did not begin till universal human conscience,’ and this loyalty is held to
much later (not before the exile). As to the particu- be conditioned on knowledge ; throughout the book it
larity of the title in 251,it is quite in the manner of is knowledge or wisdom that makes the difference
the Jewish editors-witness the titles of many psalms : between the good man and the had-the terms ‘ fool’
to be precise and full was a natural tendency, and the and ‘wicked ‘ are synonymous (see FOOL). Now, we
scribes had no historical science to guide them. In find also in a few prophetical passages insistence on the
this case Hezekiah may have been selected because of necessity of knowledge ; hut in these passages the import
his alleged prominence as a reformer (so Is. 38 ascribes of the term is markedly different from the conception in
a poem to him, and z Ch. 19 credits Jehoshaphnt with Proverbs.
the creation of a sacerdotal judiciary). W e cannot, Hosea (Hos. 46) exclaims that the people are destroyed for
then, base the question of authorship of Proverbs on lack of knowledge; but it is. because they are misled by the
the titles in the book. As to the ascription of Proverbs priests : ‘because thou [O priest] rejectest knowledge I reject
and other writings to Solomon, this also was perfectly thee from being priest’ ; the fault lies in the priests’ {gnorance
or disregard of the law of Yahwt. In Jer. 54f: 88$ 9 2 2 3 , the
natural when his reputation for wisdom had once been charge of immorality is made against all classes of the people :
And, as it is now almost universally held they do not know (that is, obey) Yahwh’s law, and it is even
said that they falsify it. Th? wisdom of the prince of Is. 11 2 is
1 I t thus stands in contrast with ~ T Ywhich seeys to designate
that of a righteous theocratic judge. Ps. 119 is a glorification
of knowledge ; hut it is knowledge of the words of Yahwt.
m e t r v as something . but cp’Ass. Ara, oracle’ (perh.
- ‘sung’;
?;om = ‘ see ’). In distinction from these prophetical passages,
2 In the vol. on Proverbs (Heb. text) in S B O T ( o n Pr. 16) P. Proverbs makes the instructed conscience the guide of
Hanpt expresses the opmion that m&il means originally life. T h e divine control of all things is recognised, and
‘equality or equal parts and halves (Ass., miZanz)’ and then
‘ simply a line of poetry or verse, each stich consisting of two the kernel of wisdom is said to be the fear of the Lord ;
hemistichs,’ that is, the reference is to the linear form and hut this means an attitude of the soul, and not depend-
not to the form of expression. Not to speak of the difficulty ence on an external code. It is assumed that he who
of giving the meaning ‘halves’ to the sing. nrASZFn’l, it is to he
observed that we do not find elsewhere, in Semitic, Gk., and knows will do right-the ultimate basis of life is a wise
Latin, areference to linear form in terms for ‘ proverb ’ : cp m*n, perception of the constitution of things. This point of
i& rraporpia,
, rrapapoA4 fioouerhium, ada@um; cp also 1-w view occurs elsewhere in O T only in Job and K6hBleth.
knd Ar. ii‘r which refer t; expression and thought. Further, It is a distinct rejection of the prophetical and legal
the seme ‘skch’seems to presuppose writing; but the term maSal
probably originated before the literary use of writing began.
8 I t need not be doubted that there was some ground for this 1 Cheyne,(]o6 a d So% 119) appositely calls the sages the
reputation ; but exactly what it was we do not know. ‘humanists.
3911 3912
PROVERBS (BOOK) PROVERBS (BOOK)
conception, and belongs to a reflective stage that we most of the duties of a man to his fellow-citizens. They
can seek only in the period when the Jews were scattered have nothing to say of courage, fortitude, moderation,
throughout the Persian and Greek empires. In Jer. self-sacrifice, intellectual truthfulness, love of beauty,
wise men ’ are enemies of truth ’-in Proverbs they are international obligations ; but this defect, however it
the sole depositaries of truth. This latter view is may be explained, is not supplied by later books. T h e
specifically Greek, and, without denying that some of motive for right-doing. ‘ that it may be well with thee,’
the material of Proverbs may be earlier, we may probably is the same throughout OT, and the avoidance of
refer the present form of the book to the Greek period. speculative inquiry concerning the nature of conscience
This date seems to be demanded also by the personifi- and the ultimate basis of moral rules is common to all
cation of wisdom in chap. 8 and the rdle assigned her Semitic antiquity. On the other hand, there are injunc-
as the controller of earthly affairs and the companion tions and points of view in Proverbs which appear to
and friend of God at the creation of the world.* Such indicate an ethical advance over the exilic and pre-exilic
a personification is foreign to the legal and prophetical books.
writings ; in the former there is no such representation, Such are the frequent praise of industry (6 6-1112 24), the scorn
and in the latter it is the ‘ word’ of Yahwe (his revelation of gluttony (2320), and the homely warning against too much
or command) on which stress is laid (Jer. 23 29 Is. 55 11, frequenting of others’ houses (25 17) ; the formulation (passim)
of the character of the scoffer (a conception peculiar to Proverbs),
cp Ps. 336). On the other band, the personification of and the special attention paid to fools, kings, and children,
wisdom in Wisd. 7 is manifestly Greek. classes not considered, from the educational point of view, in
( b ) Social conditions.-In the picture of social con- other hooks (Dt. 6 7 Ex. 12 26,%, are not exceptions) ; the deeper
ditions in Prov. there is much that might belong to any conceptions of responsibility for one’s words (10 II 12 18 13 3), of
the wisdom of heeding reproof (12 I 17 IO), and of the corre-
period from David onwards : general goodness and spondence between deeds and requital (2412, an advance in
badness, honesty and dishonesty, truth and falsehood, universality on Ezek. 18) ; the reference to the uncertainty of
industry and sloth, agriculture, business life, courts of the future (27 I ), a sort of reflection of which we find no trace in
Law or prophets ; the injunction of kindness toward enemies
l&w and kings. There is also much, however, that is out (24 17f: 25 21f:) which goes beyond the rule of Lev. 19 18 (this
of accord with the pre-exilic time. Monogamy is taken latter has in minh only fellow-countrymen).
for granted, whereas polygamy is assumed in Dt. 2115
(7th cent.) and Lev. 1818 (6th cent.). In the older law It must be said, moreover, that, though there is in
( L e v . 2010) adultery was punishable with death ; Prov. F’rov. no recognition of a law of international ethics,
632-35 treats it merely as a crime against the man’s well- there is also no trace of that bitterness toward foreign
being. T h e elaborate descriptions of harlots’ wiles and nations which disfigures the prophetical and the historical
denunciations of conjugal infidelity (especially in chaps. books, parts of the Law, and some of the Psalms ; the
1-9) agree better with a monogamous city-life; in a tone of the book is that of men who have been trained
polygamous community this vice is relatively infrequent by experience to the recognition of a universal humanity.
-in many cases the harlots of pre-exilic prophecy are The guide of conduct is the sage-the appeal is to
temple-prostitutes. Organised robbery, as in 110-19, every man’s reason and conscience.
belongs more naturally to later city-life, whether the Such is the general attitude. Yet the book has also
passage in question refer to literal robbery, or, as some its bitterness and implacableness. It adopts toward
hold, to extortion and oppression under legal forms. the wicked in general the attitude of Yahwe toward the
The practice of hoarding corn (1126) probably belongs wicked in Israel (Ani. 4 Hos. 64-6 9 7 ) ; they are warned,
to the later commercial life. T h e little treatise on the and exhorted to repent, but, if they do not change, they
care of flocks (2723-27) is hardly an early production ; must die (Prov. 120-33). There is not even a trace of
literary treatment of such subjects is elsewhere late the softness which is visible in Ezek. 1832 Hos. 1 4 4 , or
(Aristotle, Vergil). of the recognition of human weakness which is expressed
The same thing is true of the manuals of conduct for kings in Ps. 10314.’ This difference is doubtless due in great
(16 10-15 25 2-5 31 2-g), which relate to royal rulers as a class, part to the impersonal character of the moral ideal and
without distinction of peoples, and lay the emphasis on the judge in Proverbs ; Yahwi: may pity, but Wisdom must be
broad administrative virtues, the details being wholly different unrelenting. T h e sages, in fact, set forth a natural law
from those of Dt. 17 14-20, but nearly identical with those of the
post-exilic Is. 11 1-5. The instructions (23 ~ f 256
: ,%) how to in the moral world, which is no more capable of pity
conduct one’s self at the table of a king are noteworthy ; they than physical law ; the rule is : be wise or perish-it is
reflect a time when such social intercourse was not uncommon the rule of the ethical philosopher, not of the patriot or
(else they would not have found a place in Proverbs), certainly
not the pre-exilic royal period, hut rather the period of the the preacher. In this respect, as in others, we are
Grecian (and possibly the Maccabiean) princes, when it might struck by the modernness of Proverbs : prophets and
happen to any respectable man to find himself at the king’s historians often seem remote from us, and sometimes
table (see, a g . , Jos. Ant. xii. 4 3 9). even the psalms ; but Proverbs might almost have been
Finally, there are, in parts of Prov. (1-9 2221 24z3), written yesterday.
suggestions of an organisation of learning which better ( d ) ReZigiow Atftitude.-Of all the biblical books, if
suits the late reflective period : the sages are an influential we omit such works as Nahum, Obadiah, and parts of‘
body, and appear to have pupils-so we may infer from Koheleth, there is none with so simple and colourless a
the address ‘ my son,’ and from 2221-that is, academies theistic creed as Proverbs. It is distinctly and absolutely
were in existence. The dictum of Agur implies a habit monotheistic ; unlike most of the prophetical writings
of discussing theological questions. The quotations in and some of the psalms it ignores polytheism or the
305J (from Dt. 42 Ps. 1830[~1]andperhaps Job 13410) recognition of other gods than Yahwe-for it that
point to a late time, for Ps. 18 must be regarded as question is finally settled : even of angels and demons
post-exilic. it makes no mention, though these must have formed
(c) Ethics.-In certain points the ethical system of part of the general Jewish belief whether before or after
Proverbs agrees with that of the pre-exilic and exilic books the exile-but Proverbs recognises no supernatural
on both the positive and the negative sides. T h e codes element in life but the spirit of God manifesting itself
given in Ex. 20-23 Dt. Lev. and the prophets include in the thought of man, and omits intermediate agencies
as unnecessary. Its theistic faith is firm, calm, and
1 There is no sign, however in the prophetical writings of a unquestioning. It is enough that God is the creator
class of philosophically scepticil sages ;the ‘ wise men ’ depended
on political ghrewdness rather than on the word of Yahwe, and and ruler of the world. His ethical attributes are taken
advocated expediency rather than prophetic piety. for granted : there is no discussion of his justice as in
2 In Prov. 8 30 the term 1nN is by some taken a s meaning Job, no doubt of the moral significance of the world as
‘artist,’ ‘architect,’ in which case it is better pointed ; it
should rather he written if?$, ‘nursling ’ ‘ward ’ ; wisdom is the 1 See, however what is said below (under d)ofGod’s educative
creation or child of God (vu. 22-25) and his companion in his providence. In i6 I 3-12 intellectual folly is treated of humour.
creative work. ously or sarcastically.

39‘3 39’4
PROVERBS (BOOK) PROVERBS (BOOK)
in I(6h61eth.1 In accordance with this point of view pnt very late. Of the idea of bodily resurrection (which
the emotional element in religion is ignored : we find was adopted by the Jews hardly earlier than the second
no expression of love to God, of sense of sin and re- century B.c. ) there is no trace.
pentance, of joy in the service of God-only the con- The central religious conception of Proverbs is the
viction that wisdom’s ways are ways of peace and fear of God, reverence for him as ruler and law-giver ;
pleasantness. On the other hand, we have (311 12) the the sages, though philosophers, are distinctly religious.
fine conception of God as training his servants by In chaps. 1-9 the expression ‘ fear of God’ represents
suffering ; here alone in Proverbs is the word ’ love’ simply an attitude ; the fear is described a s the essence
used of God (it is used of wisdom in 817). In striking of wisdom, and its content is given in ethical terms.
contrast with all other OT books except K6h6leth the In the remainder of the book God is regarded as the
main features of the distinctively national Jewish religious protector and benefactor of those who fear him. It
faith are passed over in almost complete silence. must he added that, while ’wisdom’ in a part of
There is no mention of prophets2 or priests or temple; Proverbs (10-31) generally means sagacity, common-
sacrifice is twice alluded to as a popular custom connected with sense or prudence, it has in 1-9 a peculiar religious
feasting (7 14 17 I), twice (158 21 27) sacrifice without righteous-
ness is denounced as abhorrent t o God, and once (21 3) it is said or divine character which it is not easy to define with
that integrity is more acceptable to God than sacrifice-this last precision. In 8 it is both a human (vu.M I ) and a
declaration is quite in the spirit of the prophets of the period of divine quality (uv.22-31).
undeveloped ritual (Am. 521-23 Has. 66 Is. 111-17 Jer.73-7 Whether the author conceived of it a s an energy pervading
nzf.), only, perhaps, with a more marked tone of indifference. the universe or as a faculty breathed into man by God, or in
In contrast, however, with prophets and psalmists, some other h a y it is difficult to say. For it is not shared hy
the devotional element in religion (prayer, praise) is all men, and th; only statement that God bestows wisdom on
man occurs in a n interpolated passage (Z5-8), and does not
lacking. While there is no reference to a collection of accord with the rest of the book. Probably the sage did not
sacred scriptures (such as occurs in the prologue to the define the conception to himself, but held generally that true
Greek translation of Ben-Sira, 132 B .c.), there are two wisdom could dwell in him only who lived in sympathetic and
definite quotations (305J) ; the closest parallel to such reverent obedience to the Lord of the world. Throughout the
book the interest ofthe writers is in wisdom as such.
employment of earlier writings is the reference t o
The religious feeling of the sages forces them to
Jeremiah in Dan. 92 (165 B.c.), and the suggestion is
identify wisdom with the divine government; the
that Prov. 30 belongs to a late post-exilic period.
definition of wisdom as essentially the fear of God
In another point the silence of Proverbs is note-
worthy. Before the exile the prophets predicted simply ( 1 7 ) , the recognition of God as absolute disposer of
human affairs (16133 173), the affirmation of the
the restoration of the nation, but, after the fall of
happiness of those who trust in him ( I ~ z o and ) , similar
Jerusalem, the figure of the national king was introduced
statements, may be regarded as sincere attempts to
into the picture by prophets and psalmists as the
harmonise the philosophical point of view with the
natural political head, leading the nation in a career of
national religious conviction.’
conquest (Jer. 3315f., Is. 111-9, etc.); he was for a
( e ) ReCalion to Ecc~esiasticus.- The position of
long time a part of the national hope. I n Proverbs,
Proverbs in the arrangement of OT books, the fact,
however, he does not appear: what the book says of
that is, that it stands in the Third Canon, favours the
kings (1435 1610-15 2026 28 2421J 252-7) seems t o
view that it is late, since the other books in this canon
regard them merely as a universal element of society,
are either exilic or post-exilic. But, more particularly.
to be feared and obeyed ; when they are spoken of a s
a post-exilic date is suggested by its relation to Ben-
absolutely just (1610 2028), this is a natural idealisation
Sira.2 The two books are so much alike in point of
of the office ; their utterances are said to be as just as
view, spirit, and contents that their relation can be
an oracular decision, and wickedness is declared (1612)
explained only by one of two suppositions : either one
to be abhorrent to them. This is the tone of a man
imitates the other, or the two are products of the same
who regards society a s organised on a moral basis, and
period. But if Ecclus. imitates Proverbs (and the
feels no interest in an independent Jewish g o ~ e r n m e n t . ~
latter is confessedly the earlier of the two), the more
Nor do the writers of Proverbs express any interest in
natural explanation of the fact is that they stand near
the newer eschatological ideas.
T h e sphere of human activity, the place of struggle and together, just as the earlier part of Enoch and Daniel
happiness or unhappiness, is the present life on earth ; S h S l , a s are near each other in time as in content.
in the older literature, has no moral discriminations and no One of the most striking of the similarities between the books
rewards and punishments(the same view is found in Ecclus. and is the fact that neither lays claim to divine inspiration, in
K6hhleth). contrast with the other writings (prophets. and Tar+) that
Certain passages in the book are regarded, by some give the terms of acceptance with God. T h ~ fact s indicates In
critics, as giving evidence of a belief in ethical immor- general a post-prophetic post-legal peri0d.a the period of the
sages, who are a branch of the class of scribes, and obviously
tality, but this interpretation is improbable: 219 5 5 later than t h e legal development of the fifth century B.C. I n
refer to physical death (premature death, as in 1027, Ecclus. (3824-3911) learned men are distinctly recognised as a
being the final penalty of sin) ; in 107 28 117 the refer- separate class sharply distinguished from artisans, and their
methods of s&dy and their function are described a t length.
ence is to the present life ; 1432 may be understood T h e picture of them in Proverbs is less sharply drawn, and it
to refer either to the future or to the present; but the may be inferred that an interval of time, though not a very
text is probably in disorder. Inasmuch as the general great one, separates the two books.
position of Proverbs is perfectly clear on this point, a It thus appears that, since the thought is substantially
single couplet affirming immortality may naturally be the same throughout Proverbs, the whole of the book
regarded with suspicion. On the other hand, if the in its present form is post-exilic, not earlier than the
book be held to recognise the doctrine, its date must be second half of the Persian period, and not later than
1 Agur (Prov. 30 2 - 4 ) merely affirms man’s incapacity to com-
the first half of the Greek p e r i ~ d . ~T h e external
prehend God ; cp Cheyne, Jew. Rel. LTYe, 1 7 4 8
2 In 2918 the reference is to people in general (not to the 1 Cp Oort. S#rexkea (TkT, ~ 8 8 5 ) . A similar harmonisation
Jewish people particularly) and to law or instruction in general is fouiid in Ecclus. but not in the original Kahkleth. In the
(not to the Jewish TarZh), and the word vision (p) is error of latter there are man” harmonisinrr additions, in Proverbs
I

text. a p arently only one i n 2 5-a


3 Cheyne, however, thinks that there is a real portraiture of $ S-e .W ~
e. ~ ~L;TF.RATURE.
t n n o. ~ .
~~~~~ ~ and CD Holtzmann. in Stade.
the Messiah in these passages; see his Jew. ReZ. Life, i f 5 3 G V l 2 2 9 2 8 ; Cheyne, Job akd Sol.,‘ and Jew. Re&. Lye;
Cp Toy, ‘Proverbs’ (in Intrmat. Crit. Cumm.), and art. T h e chap. 4 ; Montefiore inJQR 2 (1889.90).
King in Jew. post-exil. writings’ ( J B L , 1809). 3 Prophetic and legal material no doubt continued to be
4 A Messianic hope is seen by some writers ( e g . , Smend, A T produced down to t h i second century B.C. ; but it was frag-
ReL-Gesch. 491) in 2 21f. ; this passage, however, hardly affirms mentary and complementary. T h e creative prophetic thought
anything more than a general trust in God’s protecting power. began to die out in the slxth century, but lingered till the
6 03’s rendering of 11 7 appears to assume immortality ; but it fourth; the law-books were practically finished by the year
is not a rendering of our Heb., and may reflect the idea of a 400 B.C.
later time. 4 I t is understood, of course, that no little of the general
39’5 3916
PROVERBS (BOOK) PROVERBS (BOOK)
influences of the time, when the Jews were scattered composed of two smaller parts, 101-162and 163-2216;
and brought into intimate intellectual relations with the the second of these is mostly made up of comparisons
great world, combined with the natural forward move- and other single sentences, whilst the first employs the
ment of the people, led them in the direction of a antithetic form. With the second agree 25-27 and
philosophical conception of life. part of 28 f.; with the first agrees the other part of
How much, in this movement, is due to Persia and how much 28f. These seem to have. been the earliest collections
to Greece, it may be hard to say; the two streams of influence (ethical couplets) ; then came the two groups of quat-
were doubtless blended and assimilated to the fundamental
Hebrew thought.1 But it would appear that, while the con- rains, 2 2 1 7 - 2 4 2 2 and 2423-34, which, by their distincter
tribution of Persia was mainly in the realm of the supernatural mention of sages’ and the freer character of their
(eschatology, angelology, demonology), that of Greece was material, indicate a later time; the more elaborate
mainly philosophical (identification of virtue with knowledge,
conception of the unity of the cosmos). It is not impossible also discourses of 1-9 (omitting 25-8 327-35 61-19 97-12) may
that some material was taken from Egyptian sources.2 be still later ; and 30f. form a n appendix. Within
( f )L i n p i s t i c Charncte~:-The vocabulary of Pro- these divisions smaller sections occur (such as 1 6 3 - 9
verbs necessarily agrees largely with that of other O T [or, 1610-152 5 2 - 7 261 3-x2 2723-27), which may
books. Its linguistic peculiarities are partly due to the well have been independent productions. Exactly when
nature of its ni;iterial. partly belong to the later usage.3 and how the various parts were combined into a book
It is not al\vays possible to say whether a given word it is hardly possible to say, nor is the question very
is late-Hebrew or poetical ; for particnlar discussions important; the main point is that the process prob-
reference must be made to the commentaries. In any ably went on through the fourth and third centuries,
case the nurnber of words which may probably be and that the appendix, 30f., may have been added
regarded as post-exilic or Aramaic is not large ; in still later ; Agnr’s dictum somewhat resembles KohCleth,
this respect Proverbs differs from the lately-discovered and the artificial tetradic form in 3011-31 and the
Hebrew text of Ben-Sira. It is not clear that there are alphabetical poem, 31 10-31 suggest a late time. Apart
any Arabic or Greek words5 The syntactical con- from the sections and sub-sections no principle of
structions are characterised by the curtness and com- arrangement of couplets and quatrains is recognisable.’
pression which naturally belong to gnomic writing. I t thus appears that the history of ancient Hebrew
The general style of the book agrees with what we aphoristic literature is parallel to the course of such
might expect of the time when Aramaic influence was 9. Hebrew !iterary developments in other peoples-
beginning to make itself felt, and the Hebrew was aphoristic it belongs to the maturest period of the
entering on its later stage-that is, the fourth and nation. The proverbs of half- civilised
third centuries B. c. peoples do not deserve to be classed as
The custom of teaching by aphorisms and short literature ; they are merely shrewd popular observations
discourses is illustrated by the whole of the series of on the passing affairs of everyday life; those broader
8. Process of early Jewish philosophical works (in and deeper observations that are more properly called
which the Pi7kj A-bJth may be included).6 aphorisms are the product of cultivated reflection. In
formation. In the fourth and following centuries Egypt the mature philosophical and ethical maxims
B.C. there must have been in circulation a-number of that bear the names of Ptahhstep, Any, and others had
proverbial sayings, and out of these our Book of their origin in one of the most flourishing periods of the
Proverbs was made up.7 The divisions visible on the Empire (see EGYPT, § 21). Hindoo proverbial literature
face of the book have been mentioned above (a
5 ) , and falls in a similar period in the history of Indian thought.
The Greek proverbs ascribed to Menander are probably
the differences between them, in content and form,
suggest that they represent separate small collections to be referred to the time that witnessed the rise of the
(very much as in the composition of the Psalter). T h e great post - Platonic schools of philosophy. Similarly
same fact is indicated by certain repetitions in the book. Hebrew aphoristic literature appears after the beginning
Where merely a line is repeated (as in 114 246), this need not of the philosophical movement that is introduced by the
show difference of editorship or of authorship, for a teacher Hook of Job ; and it maintains itself into the Talmudic
might naturally vary his expressions. Where, however, a couplet period, that is, np to the point when the main Jewish
occurs twice in exactly the same form (as in 188 26 2 2 19 I [as
emended] 286 22 3 27 12, etc.) we may infer that the two have literary activity, abandoning philosophy and apocalypse,
been inserted by different collectors.8 Such comparisons d o devoted itself to the legal and ethical exposition of the
not, however, aid in making out the primary divisions ; for this Torah. T h e fall of Jerusalem and the dispersion of the
we must depend on form and content.
Jews throughout the Roman Empire had as one effect
The central part of the book, 101-2216, stands out the concentration of attention on the law, which was
by itself, but, if we may judge by the form, is really now the sole bond of union between the scattered com-
munities. But, till this revolution was accomplished,
thought, theistic and ethical, and some of the particular illustra- aphoristic literature continued to be cultivated. The
tions, may be older than the fourth century; the present form,
however, is not popular hut academic. Book of Proverbs was followed by Ben-Sira ; a number
1 On Jewish harrowing from other nations cp M. Lazarus, of proverbs are found in KohCleth ; and the sayings in
The Ethics of fu<faism(ET), 1 1 2 8 Pirke Aboth ascribed to the great sages doubtless
2 See Ernian, B g y j t e n , 237J, and cp Griffith, art. ‘ Egypt.
Lit.’ in Library o f f h e Worlds Best Lit. (New York, 1897). represent the period beginning in the second century
3 C p the lists of words given by Driver, Introd., and Wilde- B . C . and extending into the first two centuries of our
boer, Die Spveche. era. These sayings are analogous to those that tradi-
4 T h e following appear to be late : the plur. form p w . ~ 8, 4 ; tion puts into the months of the seven wise men ’ of
i i x ~1,5 3 0 ; plj, ‘ t o utter,’ 15, etc. ; the expression 1 7 1 &y, Greece ; philosophy arose early in Greece, late among
26 g, in the sense ‘come into the possession o f ’ ; nip, 8 3 ;
and perhaps 71, 162, Trig, 1 4 and some others. Aramaic are the Jews. The Book of Proverbs, standing midway
the terminations ni and 13, and the words 13, 31 2 ; ion, ‘sin,’ in the philosophic development, is the finest philo-
sophical fruitage of the national Jewish spirit broadened
14 34 ; ND2, 7 20, and perhaps some others.
5 T h e obscure word 111, 21 8, may be Arab., hut it is doubtful
and matured by intellectual contact with the best
whether it is the right reading; n)i)iN, 3031, is error of text; foreign thought of the time.
p ~716,may be Gk. 686v, or the Gk. may come from a i. Text and versions.-Vogel (in Schultens), 1769 ; Jager?
Obsenm. in Pmv. Sal. vers. alex., 1788; Schleusner, Lexz-
Semitic term ; VDD, 21 28, is textual error. con12l. 1820: T.aearde. Anmerk. z. r i r c h .
6 C p the Gk. ‘ Menander,’ and the Syriac work bearing the 10. Literature. %ebe&--2.7 >%;~1863 DGerinck Krif;
same name. T h e instruction in the Synoptic Gospels is of the Schol. ( T h z 1883); Oort, Sj7tuk& 1.9
same character. .
(Th.T, 1885); Baumgartner, fnde c d . S U I . Prm.,1890;
7 These would be of various times and origins, as is the case
everywhere. C p Oort, i n Bible f o r Learners [or, f o r Young
.
Bickell (WZKM, 1891) ; Pinkuss, Die syr Ue6ers. d. Prm.
( Z A T W 1 8 ~ 4 ) : Gratz, Exeaet. stud. (irI his Monaisschr..
People], Rk. iii. chap. 7 ; Rack in Graetz’s Monatsschm& 1875-
1884 : Wiinsche, Die Rdfhsehueisheif6. d. He&, 1883. 1 For attempts at a determination of small sub-divisions see
8 For lists of repetitions, see Introductions and Commentaries. Ewald, Delitzsch, and Chajes.
39’7 3918
PROVINCE PSALM
1884), and Emenahtiones, 1892.94 ; Nestle, art. ‘ Biheliiber- were nominated by the emperor and held office at his
setzungen,’ in Herzog-Hauck, PREP), and published separ-
ately ; Chajes, Prov.-Stud., 1899 ; Kautzsch, Neb. text of Prou. pleasure ; all of them had the power of the sword ( j u s
_ _ _
( S 5 0 T . 1901) : Wildeboer. De Tiidcbesbaliw des Sbreuken-
boekes, &<g.
gZadii). For the administration of the finances these
lieutenants had procurators under them, whilst the
ii. Transl. and Comm.-Midrash MiiI2, ed. Buber 1893. governors of the senatorial proviinces continued to have
Saadia, ed. Derenbourg, 1894 ; Aben Ezra, ed. Horowiti, 1884 !
Rashi, Aben Ezra and Levi b. Gersom are given in Giggeius: quzstors as under the republic. Another class of
In Prou. Sal. Comment. trium Rabbin., 1620’ and other imperial provinces consisted of those which from the
p h commentaries are named in Cahen, La hible, 1847; physical nature of the country (as the Alpine districts),
Deutsch, D. Spriiche SaL’s nach d. Aufms. i. Tab=. u.
Midr., etc., 1885 ; Mercerius, 1573, 1651 : Geler, 1653
Schultens, 1748. and ed. Vogel 1769; Ewald 1837 1867
.. 1725 i or the backward state of civilisation (as Mauretania
and Thrace), or the stubborn character of the people
Hitzig, 1858 ; Kamphausen (in ’Bunsen’s 5ib&erkj 1868 ! (as Judaea and Egypt) were not adapted to receive a
Delitzsch, 1873 ; Reuss, Fr. ed. 1878, Germ. ed. 1894 ; sowack; regular provincial constitution. These were regarded as
1883;. Horton, 1891 ; Kautzsch, D.HeiI. Schr. d. A T P ) 1896.
Wildeboer, 1897 ; Frankenherg, 1898; Strack(?,1899 ; To;, 1899 f domains of the emperor, and were managed by a pro-
Oort, H e t Oude Test., 1898-1900; M. D. Conway, JoL and curator (in the case of Egypt by a przfect), nominated
SoIomonic Lit., 1900; Kautzsch, in SBOT, 1 9 1 . by and responsible to the emperor.
iii. General Wovks.-Bruch, Weisheitslehre d. HeJ. 1851 . The word d a a p ~ e i a( E V ’ province ’) occurs in NT.
Bois La pobie gnotn. etc. 1886. Cheyne /ob and Sol.’ 1887 I
in S’em. Stud., ed. Kbhut,’ 1897 f Jew. i e l . L;fe etc ’ 1898: In Acts 23 34 Felix asks concerning Paul CK Tofus Psap-
Montefiore Notes etc. ( j Q R 1890); Smend, AT’ReZ.’->esch.’ x d a s Pdv-of which kind of province he is-whether
1893 ; Pfeiker D.’rel.-sittL Lheltanschau. d. 5 . d. Spr 1897.’ provincial or senatorial. (Cilicia was probably in the
iv. Offzer&omic coIlections.-Jennings, Prou. Phil. ;fCon.
ficcius, 1895 ; Erman, a g y p t . ; Halevy Mllanges de critique time of Felix an imperial province ; cp C ILICIA , § 3.)
etc., 1883; Jager (in 5 A ) 1892. Bodtlingk, Znd. Spriichef I n 25 I the province of Festus the procurator of Judaea
M. Williams, Z d i a n Wiso!om; hir& A68fh, ed. C. Taylor; is intended (see GOVERNMENT, § 30,COl. 1914 ; ISRAEL,
Menander, eds. of Meineke and Koch ; Syriac Menander, in
Land Anad. Syr. I ; Freytag’s Meidani; Jacob, Altarab. 5 90, COl. 2275).
Parah. I . A T,1897 ; Malan Prouer6s, with numerous parallels PRUNING HOOK (il?DTn; APEITANON ; f a l x
from a great number of apdoristic collections of other peoples.
See also Thr Stow of A+i&ar (1898); cp ACHIACHARUS. [Zigo in Mic.]), Is. 2 4 1 8 5 Joel 3 [a] I O 4 3 1 . See V INE
C. H. T. and cp A GRICULTURE, 7.
PROVINCE (provincia; etymology uncertain), in the PSALM (%DTn; d Theod. VAAMOC; Aq. MEAW-
Roman sense, may be defined as the department or AHMA. Sym. W A N , ACMA; Tg. #nn>win ; cp, Staerk,
sphere of duty assigned to one of the higher magistrates Z A T W xii. [1892] 94 137. On the linguistic
(the consuls and prztors). When, however, with the affinities see BDB and Ges.-Buhl).
spread of the Roman arms, the government of con-
quered countries grew to be one of the most important The meaning of the Hebrew word is not clear.
duties of the higher magistrates, the term province, According to Lagarde (OY.223f:), i i n i ~mhmir, , came
from designating the government of a conquered into use as a technical term of synagogue-worship, in
country as one particular duty of a Roman magistrate, contradistinction to tPhilZZh, Ihillim (a>??, ob??), which
came to be used generally as a designation of the was specially appropriated to the temple cult. Gratz
country itself. (PsaZmen, 79 J ) , with whom B. Jacob (ZATCV 16
It is somewhat in this sense that the word is used in [1896] 164f:) inclines to agree, thinks that mizmir has
E V to translate min, d n M (apparently from Jp, no musical reference, merely indicating that a new
’judge,‘ hence lit: for which 6 almost psalm begins : it is equivalent therefore to ‘chapter,’
and, but for the carelessness of copyists, would stand
always has xhpu (haapxda in Esth. 411,aarpasda in
a t the head of every psalm. Delitzsch (introd. to
Esth. 89). A division of Israel into mZ’Cn5fh is men-
tioned in the time of Ahab ( I K. 2 0 1 4 8 ; see G OVERN- Ps. 3) conjectures that it was an artificial expression
MENT, § 18); mJddin5tth of the Babylonian empire are
coined by David. T h e word, which occurs exclusively
in the headings of 56 psalms and in Ecclns. 491 (see
alluded to in Ezek. 1 9 8 Dan. 82 (Elam), Lam. 1 1
(Judaea) ; those of the Persian empire are referred to
PSALMS [BOOK], § I), and to which the cognate
languages offer no corresponding terms except loan-
with great frequency in the Book of Esther (1 I , etc.) ;
the Jewish territory was one of them (Neh.76 Ezra, words, is most probably-like so many other terms in
21 ; cp G OVERNOR , I ; G OVERNMENT , 5 2 5 ; P ERSIA , the headings-corrupt.
The true word must be one which by its meaning
~f., S ATRAPS ; T IRSHATHA ). The word is also used
in a general sense in Eccl. 58 ( RV1”g.‘ the state ’) ; cp justifies its close connection with the phrases ,335
28. T h e frequent use of xhpa in Maccabees (where n i p , etc., and admits of being corrupted not only iuto
EV has ‘ country,’ but ‘ province’ would perhaps be iinm but also into i w (a corruption of a correction of
iinrD), with which it is so often combined, and which in
better) may be noted.
Augustus in 27 B.C. divided the provinces into the sense of song’ is as superfluous as iimn in the
imperial and senatorial. Those which, from their sense of ‘psalm.’ The required word is either old!,
proximity to the frontier or from the turbulence of their ‘marked’ (Dan. 1021) or ogri, ‘ m a r k ’ (.4ram.). The
population, required the presence of an army were Aram. J o w l corresponds to the Heb. ppn, ‘ to mark’
placed under the direct control of the emperor ; those (cp. T g . , Is. 101). ‘ Marked : Of the sons of Korah ’
which needed no troops were left to be administered by is just what we should expect to find a t the head of a
the senate. ( I ) The senatorial provinces were ruled by poem transcribed from the Korahite collection, and in
an annual governor as under the republic. Of these the prefix to the title we cannot be surprised to find a n
provinces Augustus ordained that Africa and Asia should Aramaism. In 1’s. 981, where linin stands, we must
be consular, the rest przetorian ; but all the governors supply in!, following 6 , and on the analogy of Ps.
of the senatorial provinces were now called proconsuls 1001,where aims (like 1115) is most probably a corrup-
(cp PKOCONSUL).Their powers and dignities were tion of p q * $ ,‘ of Jedithun.‘
much the same as they had been under the republic, I t is very possible that the familiar phrase ‘ the Book
except that they had now no troops, or only a handful of Jashar’ (i$ isp),
;? for which d substitutes ’song-
to maintain order. ( 2 ) T h e imperial provinces were
book,’ y@;ri?g, should rather be, ‘ the book of the
governed by imperial lieutenants (Zegati Cmuris), who
marked poems’ (nqd?? im)-i.e., the collection of
1 In familiar language any business was called a province.
2 In Aramaic and Arabic the cognate word means ‘city’ (so, poems whose source is indicated o i w i collectively). W.
too, in Palm. inscriptions, but in bilinguals ‘D ‘a‘ni, ‘ lovers of Robertson Smith considered 6 ’ s reading certain ; it is
their city’ [in parallelism with ‘fearers of their gods’] is repre- at any rate probably very near the truth.
sented by +rhorra.r d r p ’ cp Voq Syv. Cent.13. Bevan, Dux.
220). In Arabic efMedina is ti; city, j a r excelIence. T. K. C.

3919 3920
PSALMS (BOOK) PSALMS (BOOK)

PSALMS [BOOK]
CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTORY DISCUSSION
T i t l e (~"
8 7)
Traditio& authorship (0 2).
aisb ns),
Stens in redaction : five books (8
~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ." , .:
7 CD
I
Books I-and z (5 11).
Book I not pre:;xilic ($ 12).
Number of psalms ($ 3). Dates of collections ($ 8 ; final redaction, Date of 2nd ' Davidic' collection (5 13).
Psalter a temple handbook? (( 4). P, 9). W h y called Davidic (6 14).
Necessary qualification ($ 5). Confirmations of result so far ($ 9) Technical terms in titles (B 1 5 :cp $8 25,45).
T h e ' I ' psalins (5 6 ; cp also $ 37). Older poems included? (5 IO). Use of psalms in temple (0 16).
11. R E C E N T CRITICISM
Survey of recent criticism (B$ 17-21). On pre-exilic psalms (5 19). W. Sanday ($21).
On h1accab;ean psalms (0 18). Robertson Smith ($ 20).

111. FRESH SURVEY OF PSALTER


Preliminaries (B 22) : ii. Psalms 2Of: (8 30). iii. Duhm's argument from Psalter of
i. Ochus theory (# 23). iii. Psalms ti1 and 63 ($ 31). Solomon ($ 41).
ii. Gray on royal psalms (5 24 ; cp $5 iv. Psalms 896 and 132 (5 32). Background of Psalter of Solomon ;
29-34). v. Psalms 45 72 101 (5 33). name (5 42).
iii. Psalm-beadings ($ 25f:). Result ($ 34). iv. Imitative psalms (5 43).
Results for the guilds of singers ($ 27). Psalms of immortality (8 3 5 s ) . V . Psalni composition ($44).
Historical background of specimen psalms Ideas of Psalter varied ($ 37). Historical references in titles ($ 45).
(%28). Chronology of psalms (5 38) : Psalm-titles in versions (0 46).
Royal psalms reconsidered ($0 29.34) : i. Phraseological argument ($ 39). Poetical form ($ 47).
i. Psalms 2 18 110 ($ 29). ii. Linguistic argument (5 40). Ancient versions ($ 48).
Bibliography (5 49).
I. INTRODUCTORY DISCUSSION said ' t h e Psalms of David,' and believed the whole
2. Traditional hook to be his [and even Theodore
T h e Book of Psalms or the Psalter, the first hook of authorship. of Mopsuestia accepted the Davidic
Hagiographa in the Hebrew Bible,' bears the Hebrew authorshiD of the Psalter as a wholel.
title n$?p, t i h i l i m , or D+F p a , s@er But this title and belief are both of Jewish origin.
[Thus in 2 Ch. 2 9 3 0 David and Asaph appear to be
tillim, ' the book of hymns' or rather
combined as joint-authors of the Psalter, and] in
'songs of praise.'2 T h e singular ?ban, ichiZZuh, is
z Macc. 2 1 3 ' the [writings] of David ' ( ~ TOG h Aaued)
properly the infinitive or nomen verbi of sbn, Id.?& a
verb employed in the technical language of the temple means the Psalter. Besides, the title of the apocryphal
service for the execution of a jubilant song of praise to
' Psalms of Solomon ' implies that the previously existing
Psalter was ascribed to David. [Whether, however,
the accompaniment of music and the blare of the
we must also assume that the psalms entitled i n s were
priestly trumpets ( I Ch. 164f. 2 5 3 z Ch. 512f:). The
necessarily ascribed to king David, is questioned by
name is not therefore equally applicable to all psalms,
and in the later Jewish ritual the synonym haZZe?Z Lagarde and B. Jacob, and the correctness of the
reading ins may he strongly doubted, as also the
specially designates two series of psalms, 113-118 and
146.150, of which the former was sung at the three reading of the title n&wi. See 5 12 (u)( 4 . 1 Jewish
tradition does not make David the author of all the
great feasts, the encznia, and the new moon, and the
latter at the daily morning prayer (see HALLEL). psalms; but as he was regarded as the founder and
legislator of the temple psalmody ( I Ch., ut sup.;
That the whole book is named ' praises ' is clearly due
to the fact that it was the manual of the temple service Ezra 3 IO Neh. 12 36 45 f. Ecclus. 47 8f: ), so also he
of song, in which praise was the leading feature. For was held to have completed and arranged the whole
book, though according to Talmudic tradition' he
an individual psalm, however, the usual name is mizmdr
(iiop ; only in titles of psalms [except in Ecclus. 4 9 1 ] ) , ~ incorporated psalms by ten other authors: Adam,
Melchizedek, Abraham, Moses, Heman, Jeduthun,
which is applicable to any piece designed to be sung to Asaph, and the three sons of Korah. [Cp Driver,
a musical accompaniment. Of this word, q a h p b s , /ntr~d.(~), 7 f: ; Neubauer, Studia Bidlica, 2 6 - 8 .
'psalm,' is a translation, and in the Greek Bible the Another good authority on Jewish tradition-Dr. B.
whole book is called ' Psalms' ($aXpoi) or ' Psalter ' J a c o b w r i t e s thus : ' Not till quite late, according to
( q a h ~ j l p t o v ) . The
~ title Psalms ( q a X p o i ) or Book of the Midrash, did David take possession of the entire
Psalms (&9Xos $aXpGv) is used in the N T ( L k . 2 0 4 2 Psalter. In the second century the most important
2 4 4 4 ; Acts 120) ; but in Heb. 4 7 we find another title, teachers of the Mishna still debate the questions whether
namely ' David.' all the psalnis are by David (R. Meir), and whether
Hippolytus tells us that in his time most Christians they all refer to David (R. Elasar), or to the community
(R. Joshua), who composed the Hallel. etc. (P&ri&im,
1 [The part of this article signed 'W. R. S.' was originally 117a). T h e Church fathers, too, in the earliest age
written in 1886. I t was, however, virtually re-indorsed in 1892
in the seventh of the Lectures on Biblical Criticism now so often protest against the erroneous opinion that David is the
referred to a s OTJCP), in which, as the author states, he has author of all the psalms, and seek for reasons why the
incorporated the main conclusions of his article. Much water whole Psalter is nevertheless named after him ' ( W T W
has flowed under the bridge since 1892, and the progress of the 16 [1896], 162f:).]
critical study of other books cannot hut react on that of the
Psalms. No better starting-point, however, for the study of With this it agrees that the [Hebrew] titles of the
this great book could be had than the sketch here adopted as psalms name no one later than Solomon, and even he
the introduction to our article ; and if we decline to hold it is not recognised as a psalmodist by the most ancient
certain that a renewed investigation of the Psalter from the
pqint,of view enforced upon us by the present circumstances of tradition, that of 6 , which omits him from the title of
criticism and philology would have led the writer to the same Ps. 127 (6"inserts the name)z and makes Ps. 72 be
conclusions as in 1886, no disparagement to an enthusiastically witten cis ZaXo[w]pov. i . e . , not by but of him.
admired comrade can be intended by the scholar whose signature The details of the tradition of authorship show considerable
is appended to the larger part of the article.]
2 Hippol., ed. Lag., 188 : Eus. H E vi. 25 2 ; Epiph. Mens.
~~

et Pond. $ 23 ; Jerome's preface to PsaU.juxta Hebrrpos. 1 The passages are collected in Kimhi's preface to his com-
a [If the reading of the Cairo Hebrew text be correct, Y))D~D mentary on the Psalms, ed. Schiller-Szinessy, Cambridge, 1883.
could he used of secular songs. But Halevy, ;nor.] ~ ,&w
2 [The significance of this fact is changed, if m i y and
4 Similarly in the Syriac Bible the title is mazm8rZ. are both corruptions of the same original. See $ 12.1
3921 3922
PSALMS (BOOK) PSALMS (BOOK)
variation ; according to the Talmudic view Adam is author of the the (post-exilic) Jewish community1 than to connect it as a
Sabbath psalm 92 and Melchizedek of Ps. 110 whilst Abraham whole too closely with the services in the temple. I t is thus
is identified k t h ’ Ethan the Ezrahite (Ps. 86). According to left open to suppose that many of the salms
older Jewish tradition attested by Origen 1 Ps. 92 is by Moses 6. ‘I’O f the were hvmns of the Disuersion (see Rov?. and
to whom are assigned PSS.90-100 incldsive, according to psalm. a t the -same time to d’eny that the ious
general rule that all anonymous pieces (,ivcrri p+or, pnin?)are experiences are ever purely personal. L o f .
by the same hand with the nearest prece2ng psalm whose Robertson Smith, a t a later date, qualified his original statement
author is named ; and Ps.110, which by its title is Davidic respecting ‘individual religious experience,’ and the following
seems to have been given to Melchizedek to avoid the dilemmi passage (OTJCP)189, n.) deserves to be quoted.] ‘Some recent
of Mt. 22 41f: Origen’s rule accounts for all the psalms except writers go so far as to maintain that in all(or almost all) the psalms
1 and2, which were sometimes reckoned a s one poem (Acts13 33 the speaker is Israel, the church-nation personified:‘ so $at t h i
in the Western text; Origen B. BPrZkhBth, 96) and appear “ I ” and “ m e ” of the psalms throughout mean we “ u s
to have been ascribed to D k d (Acts’4z5). Tde opinion of the community of God’s grace and worship. So ekpecialiy
Jerome (PreJ in Ps. He&) and other Christian writers that Smend in Stade’s Zeifschvzzf, 8 4 9 f i (r.888). Few will he dis-
the collector of the Psalter was Ena does not seem to rest on posed to go so far a s Smend [who has indeed since 1888 taken
Jewish tradition. opportunities of qualifying his original position, and in his
Lehrhch d w A T Rel.-gesch.(z),361, says that he is in essential
[The number of the psalms both in @ and in M T is agreement with Cheyne, Onkin of the Psaltev, 261fi]. But
150, though the mode of arriving at this number is the view that many psalms are spoken in the name of the
3. Number different: 6 unites 9 and 10, 114 and community is no novelty, and can hardly be disputed. There
is, of course room for much difference of opinion as to the
Of
115, and divides 116 and 147 ; the extent to whi)ch this method of interpreting the “ I ’’ and “ m e ”
apocryphal psalm a t the end is not of the psalms may be applied. Driver, Introd.11) 366f: [389&]
reckoned. The oldest Jewish tradition reckoned 147 would confine it to a few psalms [but cp the fuller statement In
psalms (cp Gen. 4728) ; Pss. 9 and 10 are one, 70 and ed. 61, while Cheyne (whose remarks on the hearing of the
question on the use of the Psalter in the Christian Church will
71 are one, 114 and 115 are one, and 117 and 1181-4 repay perusal) gives it a much larger range (0rig;lZof the Psalfer,
are one, whilst 1185 begins a separate psalm (see, e.g., r8gr, Lecture vi.).’ [On this subject see further Schuurmans
the Vienna MS described by Ginsburg, Zntvod. 777). Stekhoven Z A T W 9 [18891, 1 3 1 8 ‘ Budde, TLZ, M a y 14.
1892 col. i54. Beer IndiuiduaC undkemeinde-PsaZmen (1894);
T h e inaccuracy of a n arrangement which divides Pss. 9 Cobienz UP;. dus h n d e Ich in den PsaZmen (1897) ; H. Roy,
and 10, 42 and 43 is manifest.] Die Voiksgenzeinde u. die Gemeinde der Frommen irn Psalfer
Whatever may be the value of the titles to individual (1897) ; D. Leimdorfer, Das Psalter-ego in den Ich-Psalmen
psalms, there’ can be no question that the tradition that (1898), and Baethgen’s commentary.]
[It is often said that the practice of those who prepare hymn-
the Psalter was collected by David is not books for congregational Christian use is a p i n s t Smend‘s view,
4. Psalter-
historical ; for no one doubts that [at any hymns which were originally the expression of the inward ex-
a temple rate] some of the psalms date from after perience of individuals in circumstances more or less peculiar to
handbook 1 the Babylonian exile. The truth that themselves being adapted t o more general use by omissions addi-
tions, and other large or small alterations. T h e comparison,
underlies the tradition is that the collection is essentially however, is hazardous, the awakening of individual life in the
the hymn-book of the second temple, and it was there- Western nations since the introduction of Christianity having n o
fore ascribed to ])avid, because it was assumed, as we parallel in the Semitic East. Those hymns in the O T which
were traditionally supposed to he the effusions ofindividuals(1 S.
see clearly from Chronicles, that the order of worship 2 1-10 Is. 38 10.20 Jon. 2 2-9 [3.101), turn out to he nothing of the
in the second temple was the same as in the first, and kind, but simply expressions of the faith of the pious community
had David as its father: as Moses completed the law of Israel. The same may on the whole be affirmed of the
of Israel for all time before the people entered Canaan,
‘ Psalms of Solomon.’ T h e truth is, that the controversy as to
the ‘ I ’ psalms is not so important a s has heen supposed. It is
so David completed the theory and contents of the not a part of the larger question a s to the date of the psalms,
temple psalmody before the temple itself was built. for: thy: representation of a body of men as a single being is
When we thus understand its origin, the tradition primitive ; ‘ I ’ psalms might, if the tone of thought and the
social background permitted, he pre-exilic. Nor does i t greatly
becomes really instructive, and may be translated into affect the exegesis of the psalms, except indeed when by means
a statement which throws light on several points con- of forced interpretations Duhm and B. Jacob endow the speakers
nected with the book-the statement, namely, that the of the psalms with a vigorous and almost self-assertive person-
ality. Between those who contend that the speaker of a psalm
Psalter was (finally, at least) collected with a liturgical (or of a part of a psalm) is a representative or typical pious
purpose. Thus, though the Psalms represent [according Israelite, and those who regard the speaker as the community
to the writer’s earlier view] a great range of individual itself personified, there is, exegetically, hut a slight difference.
experience, they avoid such situations and expressions And yet this difference is not to he wholly disregarded. .A
close study of the psalms, es ecially in connection with a keen
as are too unique to be used in acts of public devotion. textual criticism, will prohaily show the greater naturalness
Many of the psalms are doxologies or the like, expressly (from the point of view of Yolherpsychologie)of the latter way
written for the temple ; others are made u p of extracts of accounting for the henomena. Occasionally of course, e.g.,
from older poems in a way perfectly natural in a hymn-
in 3411 [12] 45z[r] hrx 1064f.’, there is no’possihle doubt
that it is the poet himself who speaks ; but these passages are
book, but otherwise hardly intelligible. Such ancient widely different from those about which somewhat too lively a
hymns as Ex. 151E[cp EXODUS, BOOK OF, § 61, dispute has arisen among critics of the Psalter. The evidence
of the heading of Ps. 102 cannot rightly be brought against the
Judg. 5 I S. 21-10 [cp S A M U EL, BOOKSO F , § 31, are not
included in the collection, though motives borrowed view here recommended ; the ‘ afflicted one’ e??) there spoken
from them are embodied in more modern psalms ; the of is manifestly the pious community (cp lay, 61 3 77 4).]
[The chief names an the other side2 are thoqr of Niildeke, B.
interest of the collector, we see, was not historical but Jacob and Duhm. According to NGldeke-(ZA,TWPO [ ~ p j ,
liturgical. Again, the temple, Zion, the solemn feasts, gzf:),’the ‘ I ’ psalms refer a s a rule to the poet himcelf; this is
are constantly.kept in the foreground. All these points based on the observation that in the songs in the Hebrew text
go to show that the collection was not only used but of Ecclus. 51 2-12 and 13-29 it must he Ben Sira who speaks.3
Verydifferent is the view of B. Jacob ( Z A T W l i [18971,544&),
actually formed for use in the temple.
[The preceding statement with regard to the object and use of 1 Olshausen (Psalmen, 1853) already gives this definitiin of
the collection would probably have received from the original the Psalter; hut h e does not give a clear notion of the great
writer some qualification. Most critics Jewish community, which, though conscious of its unity
6. Necessary would now admit that many of the psalms (symbolised even by so apparently trifling a point a s the turning
qualification. were probably never either used in the of a worshipper towards Jerusalem even when away from the
temple or intended for use in the temple. Holy Land), was nevertheless not merely Palestinian but
T h e synagogues were ‘ prayer-houses’ like the temple, and It is scattered in many lands.
difficult to believe that prayer did not include praise ; moreover, a We do not mention Kanig ( E M . 4m), because he admits
the ‘ missionary pcalms ’ and the so-called ‘ Puritan psalms’ had the representative character of most of the individuals who are
a special applicability to the Jews of the Dispersioii (Che. the supposed speakers in the psalms. In Ps. 23, however, the
OPs. 12 14 363 ; Duhm, Psalmen, Einl. x. ; Briggs, in New speaker, he thinks, is not the collective community(Smend), hut
World, March 1900,177). Duhm even thinks that many psalms a fugitive, who is cnt offfrom visits to the temple, like David,
can only hare heen used for private edification. At any rate according to I Sam. 26 19. (But surely the speaker in this and
it is safer to call the Psalter the prayer-book and hymn-book 0; parallel psalms is the company of faithful Israelites and diligent
frequenters of the temple, who formed the kernel of the post-
exjiic Judaean community.)
1 Opp. 2 514f: ed. de l a R u e . cp Hippol. ut supra; Jerome, J This observation of NSldeke, however, is hardly self-evident

E j . CXL (ad Cypr.), and PraJ in Mal. so far as 51 z-IZ is concerned.

3923 39-24
PSALMS (BOOK) PSALMS (BOOK)
who maintains that psalms were composed for the use of a common editorial treatment distinguishing them from
individuals who had some sacrificial rite to perform in the the rest of the Psalter. And they make u p the mass of
temple, as a means of deliverance from sickness, or as a thank-
offering for recovery' and goes so far a s to define the Psalter books ii. and iii., the remaining psalms, 84-89, appearing
(in opposition to Olshhusen and manyothers) as 'ein Geineinde- to be a sort of appendix.
opfrrgesanghuch- das hat uns 3 5 gelehrt,-ein
~ Privat(opfer)- iii. When we look at the Elohim psalms more closely,
gebetbucti-das sollte -p2jn5 zeigen.' T o these we may add however, n-e see that they contain two distinct elements :
Duhm, who, as a commentator, represents the same tendency, Davidic psalms and psalms ascribed to the Levitical
and carries the individualking interpretation of the speakers of
the p 4 m s to a n extreme. T h e ohjections to thii view will choirs (sons of Korah, Asaph).
appear to any student of Duhm's always clear and consistent, The Davidic collection as we have it splits the Levitical psalms
but too often strained, exegesis. See further, 55 16, 37.1 into two groups, and actually divides the Asaphic Ps. 50 from the
'I'lie question now arises, Was the collection a single main Asaphic collection 'iS-fi3. This order can hardly be original,
especially as the Davidic Elcihim psalms [practically 51-71I bave
act, or is the Psalter made tip of several older collections ? a separate subscription (1's. ii'zo). Hut if we remove them we
'' Here we have first to observe that in
in the Hebrew text the Psalter is divided
get a continuous body of Levitical Elohim psalms, or rather two
collections, the first Korahitic L42-491 and the second Asaphic
~~~~~~~~. into five books, each of which closes with
[ S O iS-S3I, to which there have been added by way of appendix
Ly a non-Elohistic editor a supplementary group of Kotahite
a doxology. The scheme of the whole is psalms (S4f: 87x1 and one psalm (certainly late) ascribed to
as follows :- David (861.
Rook i., Pss. 1-41 : all these are ascribed to David except I 2 10 [This very attractive theory is due to Ewald, Dichtev des
(which is really part of 9) 33 (ascribed to David in 03); doxoiogy d i e n b'trnrtesi"), 1 2 4 9 , who remarks that ( I ) the force of the sub-
41 13. scription in i 2 201 (which indicates that something quite different
Book ii., Pss.42-72: of these 42-49 are ascribed to the follows) now first becomes manifest, and ( 2 ) Ps. 42-49 50 73-SOare
Korahitea (43 being part of 42), 50 to Asaph, 51-71 to David now placed in a natural juxtaposition.]
The formation of hooks iv. and v. is certainly later than the
(except 66 67 71 anonymous ; in @ the last two [not 67 @U] bear Elohihtic redaction of hooks ii. arid iii., for Pi. IOS is made u p of
David's name), 72 to Solomon : duzofogyi2 18 19 followed by thp two ElGhim psalms (57 7 . ~ 1[%I*] 605-12 17-14]) in the Elohistic
subscription ' T h e prayers of David the son of Jesse are ended. f;,rm, though the last two hooks of the Psalter are generally
Book iii. Pss. i 3 - S ! ) : here i 3 4 3 bear the name of Asaph, 1 ahwistic.
84J S7f: that of the Korahites, 86 of David, 88 also of Heman, iv. W e can thus distinguish the following steps in the
89 of Ethan ' doxology 89 52.
Kook iv., k s . 90.106 : all are anonymous except 90 (Moses), redaction :- (u)the formation of a Davidic collection
101 103 (David)-@ gives also 104 to David : here the doxology (book i.) with a closing doxology ; ( b ) a second Davidic
is peculiar, ' Blessed be Yahwk Godof Israel from everlasting and collection (51.72) with doxology and subscription, and
to everlasting. A n d let a f fthe @eopZe say Amen, Hallelujah.
[On this doxology with the preceding benediction s e e s 17, end.] ( c ) a thofold Levitical collection (42-49, 50 53-83) ; (d)
Bookv., Pss. 107-150: of these 10s-110 12'1 124 131 133 338.145 a n Elohistic redaction and combination of (6) and ( c ) ;
are ascribed to David, and 1 2 i to Solomon, and 120-134 are (e) the addition of a non-Elohistic supplement to (d)
pilgrimage psalms ; 6 varies considerably from the Hebrew as
to the psalms to be ascribed to David, and a.sigri5 some to with a doxology : (f) a collection later than ( d ) , con-
Haggai and Zechariah ; the book closes with a group of doxo- sisting of books iv. v. Finally, the anonymous psalms
logical psalms. 1 2 , which as anonymous were hardly a n original part
T h e division into five bookswas known to Hippolytus : of book i., may have been prefixed after the whole
but a closer examination of the doxologies shows that it Psalter was completed. W e see, too, that it is only in
does not represent the original scheme of the Psalter ; the latest collection (books iv. v . ) that anonymity is the
for, while the doxologies to the first three books are no rule, and titles, especially titles with names, occur only
part of the psalms to which they are attached, but really sporadically. Elsewhere the titles run in series and
mark the end of a book in a pious fashion not uncommon correspond to the limits of older collections.
in eastern literature, that to book iv., with its rubric A process of collection which involves so many stages
addressed to the people, plainly belongs t o the psalm, must plainly have taken a considerable time, and the
or rather t o its liturgical execution, and does not, there- 8 , Dates of question arises whether we can fix a limit
fore, really mark the close of a collection once separate. collections. for its beginning and end, or even assign
i. I n point of fact, books iv. and v. have so many a date for any one stage of the process.
common characters that there is every reason t o regard i. ErfernnZ evidence.-An inferior limit for the final
them as a single great group. collection is given by the Septuagint translation. This
ii. Again, the main part of books ii. and iii. (Ps. translation itself, however, was not written all at once,
42-83) is distinguished from the rest of the Psalter by and its history is obscure; we only know, from the
habitually avoiding the name Yahwb (EV the L ORD) prologue to Ecclesiasticus, that the Hagiograpba, and
and using Elohim (God) instead. even in cases like Ps. doubtless, therefore, the Psalter, were read in Greek in
507, where ' I am Yahwk thy God ' of Ex. 202 is quoted Egypt about 130 B.C. or somewhat And the
but chmged very awkwardly to ' I am God thy God.' Greek Psalter. though it contains one apocryphal psalm
This is due not to the authors of the individual psalms, a t the close, is essentially the same as the Hebrew;
but to a n editor ; for Ps. 53 is only another recension there is nothing to suggest that the Greek was first
[with some peculiar variations 2] of Ps. 14, and Ps. T O translated from a less complete Psalter and afterwards
repeats part of Ps. 40, and here Yahwg is six times extended to agree with the extant Hebrew. It is, there-
chariged to Elohim, whilst t h t opposite change happens fore, reasonable to hold that the Hebrew Psalter was
but once. The El5him psalnls, then, have undergone completed and recognised as an authoritative collectioti
long enough before 130 B.C. 10 allow of its passing to
1 ' T h e witness of Hippolytus is found in the Greek(ed. Lag., the Greek-speaking Jews in Alexandria. Beyond this
193 : closely followed by Epiphanius, D e Mens. et P o d . D 5 ;
see Lagarde, Symmicta, 2 157) in a passage of which the genuine- the external evidence for the completion of the collectiori
ness has been questioned ; hut the same doubt does not attach does not carry us.
to the Syriac form of Hippolytus's testimony (Lagarde, Anafecfa I t appears indeed from I Ch. 168-36z Ch. 6 4 1 42, that various
Syriara, 1855, p. 86). T h e Greek speaks of a division into five psalms belonging to books iv. and v. were current in the time of
hooks (@~@Aia), the Syriac of five parts or sections (m&mw&thP). the Chronicler,3-that is, towards the close of the Persian - or
T h e latter expression agrees best with Jerome's statement in the 1 [Ewald compares Job3140 Jer.5164 and Robertson Smith
Profogus Gafeatus, ' David quem quinque incisionihus et uno (OTJCPI, 196,n. 2) refers to a parallel sdbscription in the DiwZn
volumine comprehendunt [scif. Hehrzi].' I n the preface to his pf the Hodhalite poets (236 end), fa;:zrrra hridhd wafiZfrihi
Psa2.f. iuxfa Hdrtpos Jerome refuses to allow the expression f-hamfu, etc., showing that the collectioii once ended a t this
' "five books " which some used ' (OTJClz), 194, n. I). For the point. Whether the words 'son of Jesse' always stood a t the
oldest Jewish evidence Schechter (i6id.)refers to B. Kidddsltln, end of 72 20 has been doubted ; see 12 (d) end.]
33a (' two-fifths of the Book of Psalms'). 2 T h e text of the passage is obscure and'in part corrupt ; b u t
2 [The critics are not of one mind as to the corn arative merits
of the two recensions. Delitzsch, Duhm, and WeEhausen prefer the Latin 'cum multum temporis ihi fuisserr.' probably expresses
Ps. 14, but Hitrip, Ewald (at least in 1829, see St.Kr. 774/), the author's meaning. A friend has suggested to the writer that
for ovyxpowiuac we ought perhaps to read m,yvbw i xpoviuas.
Olshausen, and (lately) Budde a r e in favour of Ps. 53. T h e text 3 [Duhm, however, regards the compilation in I 6 . 1 6 as the
of both ' recensions' is surely very defective. Bickell (ZDMG insertion of a later hand. Similarly, but in more cautious words,
268x1) finds in Ps. 14 theacrostic O@O ?;E, 'where is God?'] St. G V I 2 2 i 5 , n. 2. See 8 17.1
3925 3926
PSALMS (BOOK) PSALMS (BOOK)
more prohahl in the earlier part of theGreek period. But it is deepest dejection and yet are psalms of the temple choirs. Now
not certain tzat the palms he quotes (uti 105 106 1.39) already when the temple was reopelied for worshipbfter its p r o h a t i o n
existed in their place in our Psalter, or that Ps. 106 even existed by Antiochus, the Jews were victorious and a much more joyous
in its present form. tone was appropriate. Beaides, if the psahi)s are of the
ii. ZnternaZ evidence. --Turning now to internal Maccahee period, they can have heen no original part of the
Elohistic psalm-book, which certainly was not collected so late.
evidence, we find the surest starting-point in the But there is one and only one time in the Persian period to
Levitical psalms of the Elohistic collection. These, as which they can he referred, viz., that of the great civil wars
we have seen, form two groups, referred to the sons of under Artaxerxes 111. Ochus (middle of 4th cent. B.c.). The
Korah and to Asaph. At the beginning of the Greek Jews were involved in these and were severelychastised, and we
know from Josephus that the temple was defiled by the Persians
period or somewhat later Asaph was taken to be a and humiliating conditions attached to the worship there. It
contemporary of David and chief of the singers of his would appear that to the Jews the struggle took a theocratic
time (Neh. 1246), or one of the three chief singers aspect, and it is not impossible that the hopeful beginnings of a
national movement, which proved in the issue so disastrous, are
belonging to the three great Levitical houses (I Ch. reflected in some of the other pieces of the collection.1
25 I,$ ): The older history, however, knows nothing of (c) All this carries the collection of the EZohistic
a n individual Asaph ; a t the time of the return from psalm-book down to quite the last years of the Persian
Babylon the guild of singers as a whole was called BnS period a t the earliest, and with this it agrees-to name
Asaph (Ezra241). and so apparently it was in the time hut one other point-that the view of Israel’s past
of Nehemiah (Neh. 1122 Heb.).’ T h e singers or history taken in Ps. 78, where the final rejection of the
Asaphites are at this time still distinguished from the house of Joseph is co-ordinated with the fall of Shiloh
Levites; the oldest attempt t o incorporate them with and the rise of Zion and the Davidic kingdom, in-
that tribe appears in Ex. 6 2 4 , where Abiasaph-that is, dicates a standpoint very near to that of Chronicles.
the eponym of the guild of Asaphites-is made one of The fusion of the separate Korahite and Asaphic psalm-
the three sons of Korah. But when singers and Levites books in a single collection along with the second group
were fused the Asaphites ceased to he the only singers ; of Davidic psalms may very probably be connected with
and ultimately, as we see in Chronicles, they were the remodelling of the singers in three choirs which
distinguished from the Korahites and reckoned to Chronicles presupposes.
Gershom ( I Ch. 6), while the head of the Korahites is ( d ) Now hooks iv. and v. are, as we have seen, later
Heman, as in the title of Ps. 88. It is only in the than the Elohistic redaction of books ii. and iii., so that
appendix to the Elohistic psalm-book that we find the collection of the lastpart ofthe Psalter must, if our
Heinan and Ethan side hy side with Asaph, as in the argument up to this point is sound, be thrown into the
Chronicles, but the body of the collection distinguishes Greek period, and probably not the earliest part thereof.
between two guilds of singers, Korahites and Asaphites, This conclusion (18 d ) is borne out by a variety of
and is therefore as a collection younger than Nehemiah, indications.
but presumably older than Chronicles with its three i. First of all, the language of some of these psalms
guilds. clearly points to a very late date T h e Jews
_ .
The contents of the Korahite and Asaphic psalms had even in the time of Nehemiah (Neh.
give no reason to doubt that they really were collected 9.
1 3 2 4 ) heen in danger of forgetting their
by or for these two guilds. , , ~ ~ own ~ ~ tongue~ and
m adopting
. a jargon com-
( a ) Both groups are remarkable from the fact that they pounded with neighbouring idioms ; but
hardly contain any recognition of present sin on the part the restorers of the law fought-against t h i s tendency
of the community of Jewish faith-though they d o with vigour, and with so much success that very tolerable
confess the sin of Israel in the past-but are exercised Hebrew was written for at least a century longer. But
with the observation that prosperity does not follow in such a psalm as 139 the language is a real j a r g ~ n , ~
righteousness either in the case of the individual (49 73) a mixture of Hebrew and Aramaic, which, in a hymn
or in that of the nation, which suffers notwithstanding accepted for use in the temple, shows the Hebrew speech
its loyalty to God, or even on account thereof (44 79). to have reached the last stage of decay.
Now the rise of the problems of individual faith is the ii. Again, thollgh no part of the Psalter shows clearer
mark of the age that followed Jeremiah, whilst the marks of a liturgical purpose, we find that in books
confident assertion of national righteousness under mis- iv. and v. the musical titles [if we may follow the majority
fortune is a characteristic mark of pious Judaism after and admit, comparing Duhm, PsuZmen, ‘ Einl. ,’ 30.J.
Ezra, in the period of the law but not earlier. Malachi, that there are musical titles] have entirely disappeared.
Ezra, and Nehemiah. like Haggai and Zechariah, are The technical terms, that is, of the temple music which are
still very far from holding that the sin of Israel lies all still recognised hy the Chronicler’ have gone out of use.
in the past. presumably because they were already become unin-
( b ) Again, a considerable number of these psalms telligible, as they were when the Septuagint version was
(44 74 79 80) point to an historical situation which can made. This implies a revolution in the national music
be very definitely realised. They are post-exilic in their which we can hardly explain in any other way than hy the
whole tone, and helong to a time when prophecy had influence of that Hellenic culture which, from the time
ceased and the synagogue worship was fully established
(748f:). But the Jews are no longer the obedient slaves 1 Ps. 83,in which Judah is threatened by the neighhouring
of Persia ; there has heen a national rising and armies states acting with the support rather than under the guidance of
have gone forth t o battle. Yet God has not gone forth Asshur (the satrap of Syria?),is also much more easily understood
under the loose rule of Persia than under the Greeks, and the
with them : the heathen have heen victorious, blood has association of Tyre with Philistia(as in 874) agrees with Pseudo-
flowed like u’ater round Jerusalem, the temple has heen Scylax (see El3191 18 q), who makes Ascalon a Tyrian possession.
defiled, and these disasters assume the character of a If this psalm has a definite historical background, which De
Wette and Hupfeld doubt, it must he later than the destruction
religious persecution. of Sidon by Ochus, which restored to Tyre its old pre-eminence
The% details would fit the time of religious persecution under in Phcenicia.
Antiochus Epiphanes, to which indeed Ps. 74 is referred (as a 2 For details as to the linguisticphenomena of the Psalms, see
prophecy) in I Macc. 7 16. But against this reference there is especially Giesehrecht in Stade’s Zeitschr., 1881,p. 276f: The
the ohiection that these Dsalrns are written in a time of the objections of Driver ( j o x m . of Phil. 11 233) do not touch the
argument that such psalms as 130 [ a t least if M T is correct]
1 The threefold division of the singers appears in the same helong to the very latest stage of biblical Hebrew. [See also
list according to the Hehrew text of n. 17; but the occurrence of Cheyne, OPs., Appendix ii., where, however, as also in Giese-
Jeduthun as a proper name instead of a musical note is suspicious, hrecht’s and Driver’s essays, due account is not taken of the
and makes the text of @ B N A [which suggests a twofold division ; uncertainty of MT.]
see GENEALOGIES, $ 7 , ii. (a),n. 3 hut cp $ 26 (c), end1preferable. 3 [So again in O T j C ( 4 208. But in arrest of judgment see
The first clear trace of the triple cioir is, therefore, in Neh. 12 24- Ps.(z).where it is maintained that there is much corruDtness in
Le., not earlier than Alexander the Great, with whom Jaddua the traditional text.]
(71. 22) was contemporary. [See E ZRA -N EHEMIAH , 5 11; 4 [So according to M T of I Ch. 15 zof: (RV, ‘set to Alamoth,’
NEHEMIAH, $ I.] ‘set to the Sheminith’); hut see 5 26 (4 ,SHEMINITH.]
and
3927 3928
PSALMS (BOOK) PSALMS (BOOK)
of the hfacedonian conquest, began to work such changes in books iv. and v. any pieces older than the completion
on the whole civilisation and art of the East. Cp Older poems of books ii. and iii. ( 5 8 4 , for the
MUSIC,3 12. composition of a poem and its ac-
iii. Once more, the general tone of large parts of this
included? ceptance as part of the Levitical
collection is much more cheerful than that of the Elohistic liturgy are not necess&ily coincident in date, except in
psalm-book [42-83]. psalms written with a direct liturgical purpose. In the
I t begins with a psalm (90) ascribed in the title to Moses, and fifteen [so-called] ' songs of degrees ' (Pss. 120-134) we
seemingly desiqned to ex ress feelings appropriate to asituation have a case in point.
analogous to that of the ysraelites when, after the weary march
through the wilderness, they stood on the borders of the promised According to the Mishna (di'&f8th, 25) and other Jewish
land. I t looks back on a time of great trouble and forward to a traditions [bee Delitzsch and Grhtz] theie psalnis were sung by
brighter future. I n some of the following psalms there are still the Levites a t the Feast of Tabernacles on the tifteen steps or
references to deed? of oppression and violence ; but more gener- degrees that led from the women's to the men's court. But when
ally Israel appears a5 happy under the law, with such a happiness we look at the psalms themselves w e see that they must origin-
as it did enjoy under the Ptolemies during the third century B.C. ally have been a hymn-hook, iiot for the Levites, hut for the
T h e problems of divine justice are no longer burning questions ; laity who came u p t o Jerusalem at the great pilgrimage feasts ;
the righteousness of God is seen in the peaceful felicity of the and the title of this hymn-hook (which can be restored from the
pipns (91 92 etc.). Israel, indeed, is still scattered and not titles derived from it that were prefixed to each song when they
triumphant over the heathen ; but even in the dispersion the were taken,into the Levitical connection) was simply ' Pilgrim-
Jews are under a mild rule (1064% and the commercial activity age Songs. 1
of the nation has begun t o develop beyond the seas (107 z;J). All these songs are plainly later than the exile ; but
The whole situation and vein of piety here are some of them cannot well be so late as the formation of
strikingly parallel to those shown in Ecclesiasticus, the Elohistic psalm-book.
which dates from the close of the Ptolemaic sovereignty T h e simple reason why they are not included in it is that they
were hymns of the laity, describing with much beauty and depth
in Palestine. But some of the psalms carry us beyond of feeling the emotions of the pilgrim when his feet stood within
this peaceful period to a time of struggle and victory. the gates of Jerusalem when he looked forth on the encircling
In Ps. 118 Israel led by the house of Aaron-this is a notable hills when he felt hoGgood it was to be camping side by side
point-has emergid triumphant from a desperate conflict and witdhis brethren on the slopes of Zion2 (133), when a sense of
celebrates at the temple a great day of rejoicing for the nnhoped- Yahwb's forgiving grace and the certainty of the redemption of
for victory ; in Ps. 149 the saints are pictured with the praises of Israel triumphed over all the evils of the present and filled his
God in their throat and a sharp sword in their hands to take soul with humble and patient hope.
vengeance on the heathen, to bind their kings and nobles, and T h e titles which ascribe four of the pilgrimage songs t o David
exercise against them the judgment written in prophecy. and one to Solomon are lacking in the true @, and inconsistent
Such an enthusiasm of militant piety, plainly based with the contents of the psalms. [In Ps.122 the title seems to
have been suggested by v. 5 , the trne rendering of which is, 'for
on actual successes of Israel and the house of Aaron, there were set thrones of judgment, the thrones of the house of
can only be referred to the first victories of the Macca- David.'sl
bees, culminating in the purification of the temple in [Of the titles of other pieces in hook v.] the name of
165 R.C. This restoration of the worship of the national Moses in Ps. 90 and that of David in Pss. 101 103
sanctu'uy under circumstances that inspired religious 108-110 138-145 are better attested, because found in
feelings very different from those of any other generation d as well as in the Hebrew, and therefore probably
since the return from Babylon, might most naturally be as old as the collection itself. But where did the last
followed by an extension of the temple psalmody; it collectors of the Psalms find such very ancient pieces
certainly was followed by some liturgical innovations, which had been passed over by all previous collectors,
for the solemn service of dedication on the twenty-fifth and what criterion was there to establish their genuine-
day of Chislev was made the pattern of a new annual ness? N o canon of literary criticism can treat as
feast (that mentioned in Jn. lOzz). Now in I Macc. valuable external evidence an attestation which first
454 we learn that the dedication was celebrated with appears so many centuries after the supposed date of
hymns and music. In later times the psalms for the the poems, especially when it is confronted by facts so
encaenia. or feast of dedication, embraced Pss. 30 and conclusive as that Ps. 108 is made up of extracts from
113-118 (the so-called HALLEL). There is no reason Pss. 57 and 60, and that Ps. 139 is marked by its language
to doubt that these were the very psalms sung in as one of the latest pieces in the book. T h e only
165 B. c . , for in the title of Ps. 30 the words ' the song possible question for the critic is whether the ascription
for the dedication of the house ' ( n q ? np:riyj) which of these psalms to David was due to the idea that he
are a somewhat awkward insertion in the original title, was the psalmist p a r exceZZence, to whom any poem of
are found also in d ($. 4 S i j s TOG ~ ~ K ~ c v ~ TuO G~ o Gunknown origin was naturally ascribed, or whether we
o k o u ) . and therefore are probable evidence of the have in some at least of these tit:.es an example of the
liturgical use of the psalm in the very first years of the habit so common in later Jewish literature of writing in
feast (cp, however, § 24). But no collection of old the name of ancient worthies. In the case of Ps. 90 it
psalms could fully suffice for such an occasion, and there can hardly be doubted that this is the real explanation,
is every reason to think that the huZZZZ, which, especially and the same account must be given of the title in Ps.
in its closing part, contains allusions that fit no other 145, if, as seems probable, it is meant to cover the
time so well, was first arranged for the same ceremony. whole of the great huZW or ft?hiZZah (Pss. 145-150),
The course of the subsequent history makes it very which must, from the allusions in Ps. 149, as well as
intelligible that the Psalter was finally closed, as we from its place, be almost if not quite the latest thing in
have seen from the date of the Greek version that it the Psalter.
must have been, within a few years at most after this For the later stages of the history of the Psalter n e
great event.' From the time of Hyrcanus downwards have, as has been seen (6 , - 8 -f.). a fair amount of circum-
the ideal of the princely high priests becomes more and ll. Books i.,f. :stantial evidence pointing to conclu-
more divergent from the ideal of the pious in Israel, ' sions of a pretty definite kind. The
and in the Psalter of Solomon (I 41J) we see religious approximate dates which their contents
poetry turned against the lords of the temple and its sugeest for the collection of the
worship. [Besides the more recent commentaries, cp Elohistic p s a l m - b o ~[42-831
~ and of books iv. and v.
Riedel's article, Z A T W 19 (1899) 1 6 9 8 The ques- confirm one another, and are in harmony with such
tion of the date of the final redaction will be treated indications as we obtain from external sources. But,
more decisively when the text and the grouping of the in order to advance from the conclusions already reached
psalms has been examined more thoroughly.]
All this does not, of course, imply that there are not 1 ,&pan 1 : ~(n\yn as in E n a T g ) seems t o he properly a
plural [meaning, 'the songs of Pilgrimage 'I like n i x n n,I.
owever 0 12 (4.1
1 Possibly under Simon : compare the other hallel (Ps. 146- ['P[;or the' writer's interesting explanation of 133 zf: see
150) with I Macc.135oJ [See also OPs. IIJ; Peters, New OTJCPI, 212, note.]
WOYZU', June 1893,p. 298.1 3 OTJCP), 213.

3929 3930
PSALMS (BOOK) PSALMS (BOOK)
to a view of the history of the Psalter as a whole, we have been that this collection had already a fixed
have still to consider the two great groups of psalms liturgical position. I n other words, book i. is the oldest
ascribed to David in books i. and ii. Both these groups extant liturgy of the second temple, whilst there is no
appear once to have formed separate collections and in evidence that the Davidic psalms of book ii. had a
their separate form to have been ascribed to David ; for fixed liturgical place till at least the close of the Persian
in book i. every psalm, except the ntroductory poems period.
Ps. If. and the late Ps. 33, which may have been And now the question arises : May we suppose that
added as a liturgical sequel to Ps. 32, hears the title ’ of the oldest liturgy of the second temple was also the
David,’ and in like manner the group Pss. 51-72, though liturgy of the temple of Solomon ?
it contains a few anonymous pieces and one psalm which i. W e have it in evidence that music and song ac-
is either ‘ of‘ or rather, according to the oldest tradition, companied the worship of the great sanctuaries of
‘for Solomon’ (cp 12, ad i n i f . ) , is essentially a
12. Book
not northern Israel in the eighth century
Davidic hymn-book, which has been taken over as a B.C. (Am.523) ; but from the con-
whole into the Elohistic Psalter, even the subscription
pre-exilic. text it appears probable that the
7220 not being omitted, Moreover, the collectors of musicians were not officers of the temple. but rather the
books i. -iii. knew of no Davidic psalms outside of these worshippers at large (cp Am. 6 5). So it certainly was
two collections, for Ps. 86 in the appendix to the Elohistic in the days of David ( 2 S. 6 5 ) and even of Isaiah (3029
collection is merely a cento of quotations from Davidic [but 3027-33maybealater insertion, see I S A I A H (BOOK),
pieces with a verse or two from Exodus and Jeremiah. § 1261); the same thing is implied in the song of
These two groups [3-41 51-72], therefore, represented Hezekiah (Is. 3820) ; and in Lam. 27 the noise within the
to the collectors the oldest tradition of Hebrew psalmody ; sanctuary on a feast-day which affords a simile for the
they are either really Davidic or they passed as such. shouts of the victorious Chaldzans suggests rather the
This fact is important ; but its weight may readily be untrained efforts of the congregation than the disciplined
over-estimated, for the Levitical psalms comprise poems music of a temple choir. The allusion to ‘ chambers of
of the last half-century of the Persian empire, and the singers’ in Ezek. 4 0 4 4 is not found in the text of 6 ,
final collection of books ii. and iii. may fall a good deal which is justified by the context,’ and the first certain
later. Thus the tradition that David is the author of allusion to a class of singers belonging to the sacred
these two collections comes to us, not exactly from the ministers is at the return from Babylon (Ezra 241). T h e
time of the Chronicler, but certainly from the time when way in which these singers, the sons of Asaph, arespoken
the view of Hebrew history which he expresses was in of may be taken as evidence that there was a guild of
the course of formation. It is not too much to say temple singers before the exile ; hut they cannot have
that that view-which to some extent appears in the been very conspicuous or we should have heard more
historical psalms of the Elohistic Psalter [42-83]-im- of them.
plies absolute incapacity to understand the difference ii. T h e historical books, as edited in the captivity,
between old Israel and later Judaism, and makes almost are fond of varying the narrative by the insertion of
anything possible in the way of the ascription of com- lyrical pieces, and one or two of these-the ‘passover
paratively modern pieces to ancient authors. song‘ (Ex. 15) and perhaps the song from the book of
Nor will it avail to say that this uncritical age did not Jashar ascribed to Solomon (see 0ir/Clz), 434; JASHER,
ascribe the psalms to David but accepted them on the BOOK OF, 3)-look as if they were sung in the first
ground of older titles, for it is hardly likely that each temple; but they are not found in the Psalter, and,
psalm in the Davidic collections had a title before it was conversely, no piece from the Psalter is used to illustrate
transferred to the larger Psalter ; and in any case the the life of David except Ps. 18, and it occurs in a section
titles are manifestly the product of the same uncritical which can be shown to be an interpolation in the original
spirit as we have just been speaking of, for not only are form of 2 S .
many of the titles certainly wrong, but they are wrong in iii. These facts seem to indicate that even book i. of
such a way as to prove that they date from an age to the Psalter did not exist when the editing of the historical
which David was merely the abstract psalmist, and which books was completed, and that in music as in other
had no idea whatever of the historical conditions of his matters the ritual of the second temple was completely
age. [But CP § 45.1 reconstructed. Indeed, the radical change in the religious
(u) For example Pss. 2 0 3 are not spoken by a king, but ad- life of the nation caused by the captivity could not fail
dressed to a king by his people ; Pss. 5 27 allude to the temple to influence the psalmody of the sanctuary more than
(which did not exist in David’s time), and the author of the any other part of the worship.
latter psalm desires to live there continually. Even in the older (a) T h e book of Lamentations marks a n e r a of profound im-
Davidic psalm-hook [3.411 there is a whole series of hymns in portance in the religious poetry of Israel, and no collection
which the writer identifies himself with the poor and needy the formed before these dirges were first sung could have been an
righteous people of God suffering in silence a t the hands of the adequate hymn-book for the second temple. I n point of fact,
wicked without other hope than patiently to wait for the inter- the notes struck in the L AMENTATIONS (q.v.) and in Is. 40-66
posit& of Yahw&(Pss. 1 2 25 3 7 3 etc.). Nothing can he farther meet our ears again in not a few psalms of book i., e.g., Ps. 22
removed than this from any possible situation in the life of the 25, where the closing prayer for the redemption of Israel in a
David of the books of Samuel ; and (6) the case is still worse in verse additional to the acrostic perhaps gives, as Lagarde
the second Davidic collection [51-721, especially where we have suggests (Symmicia, 1107), the characteristic post-exile name
in the titles definite notes as to the historical occasion on which Pedael as that of the author ;2 Ps. 31, with niany points of resem-
the poems are supposed to have been written. T o refer Ps. 53 blance to Jeremiah; Ps.34f: where the ‘servant of Yahwk’3 is
to Doeg, Ps. 54 to the Ziphites, Ps. 59 to David when watched the same collective idea as in Deutero-Isaiah ; and Pss. 38 41.
in his house by Saul implies an absolute lack of the very T h e key to many of these psalms is that the singer is not a n
elements of historical iudgment. Even the bare names of the individual but, as in Lam. 3, the true people of God represented
old history were no longer correctly known when Abimelech (the as one person ; and only in this way can w e d o justice t o expres-
Philistine king in the stories of Abraham and Isaac) could be sions which have always been a stumbling-block to those who
substituted in the title of Ps. 34 for Achish, king of Gath. regard David as the author.
In a word, the ascription of these two collections to (6) At the same time, other psalms of the collection treat the
problems of individual religion in the line of thought first opened
David has none of the characters of a genuine historical b y Jeremiah. Such a psalm is 39, and above all Ps. 16. Other
tradition. [On the whole question cp 5 25.1 pieces indeed may well be earlier. When we compare Ps. 8
At the same time it is clear that the two [Davidic] with j o b 7 173[on the text of which cp J O B (BOOK), $51, we
collections do not stand on quite the same footing.
T h e Elohistic redaction-the change in the names of 1 [For O%ltb’, ‘singers,’read O;gf, ‘two,’ with Hitz., Smend,
G o d e x t e n d s only to the second [51-72). Now the etc. : point ni$.l
formation of the Elohistic Psalter [42-831 must have 2 [Lagarde makes a similar suggestion for Ps. 34, where the
been an official act directed to the consolidation of the additional verse begins with n1-v 7119. See Rahlfs, 9 1 and
~

liturgical material of the temple, and if it left one of the 13y in den Psd+en, 41, and cp PEDAIAH.]
so-called Davidic collections untouched the reason must 3 [This involves reading in 3422 i.l?y for l’:?z.l

3931 3932
PSALMS (BOOK) PSALMS (BOOK)
can hardly doubt t h a t the psalm lay before the writer who in the solemn feasts or appear before the altar to fulfil
gave its expressions so bitter a turn in the anguish of his their vows (Ps. 546 55 14 6 3 66 ‘3, etc. ). Moreover, the
soul, and Ps. 2OJ plainly belong to the old kingdom. But on
the whole it is not the pre-exilic pieces that give the tone to didactic element so promitient in the Levitical psalms
the collection. is not found here.
Whatever the date of this or that individual poem, Such is the fragmentary and conjectural outline
the collection as a whole-whether by selection or which it seems possible to SLIDPIY of the history of the
1..

authorship-is adapted to express a religious life of 14. why called two Davidic collections, from which it
which the exile is the presupposition. Only in this way appears that the name of David which
Davidic. thev bear is at least so far apurouriate
can we understand the conflict and triumph of spiritual _ I ~

faith, habitually represented as the faith of a poor and as it marks the generally noli-clerical origin of these
struggling band living in the midst of oppressors and poems. T h e positive origin of this title must be
with no strength or help save the consciousness of loyalty sought in another direction and in connection with
to YahmB, which is the fundamental note of the whole book i. From the days of Amos, and in full ac-
book. cordance with the older history, the name of David
Whether any of the older poems really are David’sis a question had been connected with musical skill and even the
more curious than important, as, at least. there is none which invention of musical instruments (Amos 6 5 [but c p
w e can fit with certainty into any part of his life. If we were
sure that 2 S. 22 was in any sense part of the old tradition of D AV I D , 1 3 , n. 3, col. 10341). In the days of
David’s life, there would he every reason to answer the question Nehemiah. though we do not hear of psalms of David,‘
in the afiimiative, a5 has been done by Ewald ; hut the grave we do learn that instruments of the singers were
douhtn that exist on this point throw the whole question into designated as Davidic, and the epithet ‘ m a n of G o d ’
the region of mere cenjecture.
[Driver reinarks (infrod.Ci,380), ‘The generality of z S.,,22 I (Neh. 1236) probably implies that, agreeably with this,
detracts considerably from its value : there was no “day on David was already regarded as having furnished psalms
which YphwvS delivered David “out of the hand of Saul.’’ as well as instruments. But it was because the temple
Contrast 2 S. 1 IT.’]
music was ascribed to him that the oldest liturgy came
The contents of book i. make it little probable that
to be known in its totality as ‘ Psalms of David,’ and
it was originally collected by the temple ministers. whose
the same name was extended to the lay collection of
hymn-book it ultiniately became. T h e singers and
‘ Prayers of David,’ while the psalms whose origin was
Levites were ill provided for, and consequently irregular
known because they had always been temple psalms
in their attendance a t the temple, till the time of
were simply named from the Levitical choirs, or at a
Nehemiah, who made it his business to settle the later date had no title.
revenues Of the clergy in such a way as to make regular
[At the close of his monograph on the Titles of the
service possible. With regular service a regular liturgy Psalms according to early Jewish authorities (Studin
would be required, and in the absence of direct evidence
BidCca, 257) Neubauer writes thus :-
it may be conjectured that the adoption of the first part ‘From all thesedifferent expositions of the titles of the Psalms
of the Psalter for this purpose took place in connec- it is evident that the meaning of them was early lost ; in fact,
tion with the other far-reaching reforms of Ezra and the LXX and the other early Greek and Latin
Nehemiah. which first gave a stable character to the 16.Technical translators offer no satisfactory explanation
community of the second temple. I n any case these
terms in titles. of most of them. Of the best Jelvish com-
mentators like Ibn Ezra and David Kimhi,
psalms. full as they are of spiritual elements which can the former treats them as the opening words of popular melodies,
never cease to be the model of true worship, are the the other as names of instruments, both confessing that the real
necessary complement of the law as published by Ezra, meanings are unknown. Saadyah is no more successful : the
Karaitic writers refer them mostly to the present exile, which is
and must be always taken along with it by those who more Midrashic than the Midrash upon which the Targum i s
would understand what Judaism in its early days really based. Immanuel [of Rome, the friend of Dante] and Remokh
was, and how it prepared the way for the gospel. [of Barcelona] put Averroism in them and in the Psalms. The
Syriac beadings are a comparatively late production and
T h e second Davidic collection, which begins with a arbitrary. Thus, when all traditional matter is exhausted, the
psalm of the exile (Ps. 51 ; see the last two verses), only reiiiaining resource is the critical method. which however,
contains some pieces which carry us o n the present subject has as yet made no considerabl; progress
13. Date of down to a date decidedly later than (see S 26).
second Davidic that of Nehemiah. Thus Ps. 6827 On musical notes like Neginoth, Sheminith, etc., no
represents the worshipping congrega- suggestion is offered either in the E B article on the
tion as drawn partly from the neighbourhood of Jerusalem Psalms or in U1’/C(2). On one point, however, the
and partly from the colony of Galilee [so Wellhausen]. writer had reached a definite opinion (cp OT/C12i 2 0 9 ) ,
In several psalms of this collection, as in the Levitical viz., that a number of the psalms were set to melodies
psalms with which it is coupled, we see that the Jews named after popular songs2 and that of one of these
have again begun to feel themselves a nation, not a songs, beginning nmon-irc (see titles of Pss. 57 58), a
mere municipality, though they are still passing through trace is still preserved in Is. 658 (see O T J C R , 209, a n d
bitter struggles ; and side by side with this there is a Cp AL-TASCHITH).]
development of Messianic hope, which in Ps. 72 takes From this [interesting feature in some of the musical
a wide sweep, based on the vision of Deutero-Isaiah. titles] we may infer that the early religious melody of
All these marks carry us down for this as for the other 16. Use of Israel had a popular origin, and was closely
collections of the Elohistic Psalter [42-831 to the time in connected with the old joyous life of the
when passive obedience to the Achanenians was inter- From the accomts of the musical
temple. services
nation.
of the Levites iu Chronicles no
rupted. Several points indicate that the collection was
not. originally formed as part of the temple liturgy. clear picture can be obtained or any certainty as to the
T h e title. as preserved in the subscription to Ps. 722o, technical terms used [cp Neubauer, as above, 153.
w-as not ’ Psalms ’ [though d gives iipvor=ni$zn’] but From ’Theophrastus (ap. Porph., De A b s f i n . 2 2 6 ) -
.: perhaps the first Greek t o make observations on the
‘ I’rayers of David.’ Again. while the Levitical psalms Jews-we may at least gain a n illustration of the original
were sung in the name of righteous Israel, of which, liturgical use of Pss. 8 134. H e speaks of the worshippers
according to the theory of the second temple, the priestly as passing the night in gazing at the stars and calling
and Levitical circles were the special holy representa- on God in prayer, words suggestive rather than strictly
tives, these Davidic psalms contain touching expressions accurate. Some of the Jewish traditions as to the use
of contrition and confession (51 65). And, while there
are direct references to the temple service, these are 1.e.. not in the parts of the hook of Nehemiah which are by
often made from the standpoint, not of the ministers Nehemiah himself.
of the teniplc, but of the laity who come u p to join 2 Compare the similar way of citing melodies with the prep.
‘a2or ‘alkiila, etc., in Syriac (Land, Anecd., 4 ; Ephr. Syr.,
1 [Gritz and T. K . Abhott accept this reading.] Nytnni, ed. Lamy). [Cp 07JC1’3 Lc.]
3933 3934
PSALMS (BOOK) PSALMS (BOOK)
of particular psalms have been already cited ; it may be traditionalism. In his commentary he repeatedly speaks
added that the Mishna ( T i m i d 73) assigns to the of more or less probable, or even certain, Davidic
service of the continual burnt-offering the following psalms. Elsewhere he refers for pre-exilic psalms in
weekly cycle of psalnis,-(I) 24, ( 2 )48, ( 3 ) 82, ( 4 ) 94, the first place to the royal psalms, and to the psalms of
(5) 81, ( 6 ) 93,. (Sabbath) 92, as in the title. [Cp praise for the deliverance of Jerusalem (46 48 75 76),
Neubauer, op. ctt., p. 4 ; Herzfeld, G V I 3163 Gratz, which can ‘securely (?) be claimed for the age of the
MGPVJ27m7fl ?‘he notice in the Mishna is in kingdom,’ and which ‘may carry many others with
the main confirmed by the L X X , which for most of them,’ also to the phrase ‘ t h e sweet psalmist (!) of
these psalms mentions the appointed day of the week Israel,’ which he accepts as the true meaning of z S. 23 re,l
in the title; the exceptions are 82 and 81. It is and to the improbability (?) that late psalmists could
remarkable that in the Hebrew text only the psalm for write fairly good Hebrew.
the Sabbath is indicated, which may confirm the view Budde is more cautious. H e expresses the view
mentioned below (§ 26 [26]) that nzvn oi.5 is a corruption (1892) that many pre-exilic elements must have passed
of n w w - i . e . , perhaps o*1n.~5 ‘ of the Ethanites.’] ‘into the flesh and blood of the post-exilic temple-
Many other details are given in the treatise SCphPrim; poetry,’ though he says that he does not feel a t all
hut these for the most part refer primarily to the bound to indicate them,2 and (1899)that many psalms
synagogue service after the destruction of the temple. ‘ were the expression of such a relation (viz., of bliss-
For details on the .liturgical use of the Psalter in ful intercourse with God) before the community ever
Christendom the reader may refer to Smith’s Dict. Chr. appropriated them.’
Ant., S . V . ’ Psalmody.’ W. R. S. Wildeboer (Letterkunde(’)[18g3], 306)says : ‘Though
it is not possible to tell with certainty which psalms are
11. SURVEY O F R E C E N T CRITICISM pre-exilic, and w-hat form they originally had, it is most
If Kautzschs statement of the case in his OutZine of probable that, especially out of the oldest of the col-
lections M-hich form the foundation of our Psalter, some
the History -~ of the Literature of the O T (1898. with
\ -
have been transferred to our Psalter.’
Recent which some pages from his pen in Th.
u. Krit. 1891, pp. 577 fl, may Such are the judgments of the chief critics who
I criticism. Stud.be compared) is correct, no verv strikine support Kautzsch. One of them, horn-ever (Hudde),
progress has been ni&e in’the criticism of thk Psalter gives him only a qualified assent, and it may now be
since the first publication of Robertson Smiths article. added that Wellhausen. ‘ t h e William Tell of critics,’
That there are some pre-exilic pieces in the collection, makes up by his consistency for the hesitation of some
though none that can plausibly be shown to be Davidic. of his colleagues. I n the notes to the English version
was stated in 1886 in this article, and Prof. Kautzsch of the psalms in SBOT (1898), this eminent scholar
does little more than restate it. These are his words, repeats the substance of a sentence which he inserted in
as given by the translator of his excellent work (p. Bleek’s EinZeitung ia das A n 4 ) , in these emphatic
y3):- words :-
Our present Psalter in all prohability contains a fair numher ‘ It is not a question whether there he any post-exilic psalms,
of pre-exilic songs or fragments of songs. To say nothing of but rather, whether the psalms contain any poems written before
the so-called Royal Psalms 20 21 45 which can only be under- the exile. The strong family likeness which runs through the
stood as songs from before ;he exile’ or of the manifold traces Psalms forbids our distributing them among periods of Israel-
of antique phraseology one circumst.&ce in particular supports itish history widely separated in time and fundamentallyunlike
this. Such energeticdinial of the necessity of the sacrificial ritual in character’ (163).
as is found in 407 [6l 5 0 8 8 and 51 18 [161f: (softened down with Duhm, too, in a work to which no one can deny the
muchtrouble by the liturgical addition,^. ~0[18]J)co~ld not have merit of acuteness (PsuZmen, 1899), has altogether
found its way into the temple hymn-book till the psalms which
contain it had long been clothed with a kind of canonical broken with the critical hypothesis of pre-exilic psalms ;
dignity’ (p. 143). and so too has the present writer, who in 1891 only
Elsewhere (p. 145 $ ) Kautzsch admits isolated with some hesitation admitted Ps.18 to he late pre-
Maccabzean psalms in the second collection (Pss. 42-89) exilic-a concession long since retracted, though in
and a larger number in the third (Pss. 90-150). H e 1896 he held it to be not impossible ‘that some of the
makes no reference, however, to the existence of an psalms (in an earlier form) were written in Babylonia
imperfectly solved problem, and here Robertson Smith’s before the Return-Le., between 538 and 432, the
article is superior to the OutZinc. date of the return of the Golah, according to Kosters.’
It must be admitted that several of the best-known At the same time, it is only too plain that even the
scholars agree on the main point (pre-exilic psalms) advanced criticism represented by Wellhausen and
with Kautzsch. Thus Konig (EinZ. 401 8 ) recognises Duhm is to a large extent only provisional. Negatively,
the Davidic origin of some psalms as historically the position of these scholars may rightly seem to them
probable ( !), and as careful a scholar, Driver (Introd.P) secure ; but positively, they would be the first to admit
380: 384 fl ), recognises certain pre-exilic psalms, that often they do but see in twilight. Duhm, for
beginning with 2 18 20 21, and ending with 101 110. instance, whose criticism of the text is often so nn-
Among American scholars we find J. P. Peters express- methodical, cannot feel equal confidence about all the
ing the opinion 2 that not only Ps. 2021. but even 1 Can it he probable that the composition of sweet songs for
‘ perhaps the greater part ’ of book i. of the Psalms, is Israel’s use would be made parallel to the having received the
pre-exilic, and that some a t least of the psalms of the sacred unction as king? Even if we read n?g! (Ges.-Bu., W.
Korahite and Asaphite collections are based on old R. Smith ?) and rendered ‘the sweet musician of Israel ’ we
should only i a i n a parallelism (not phraseological) with I S. i 6 16;
Israelite originals, Pss. 42 and 46 being ultimately de- there would still be no parallelism with 2 S. 23 Id. ‘Thefavourite
rived from the N. Israelitish temple of Dan, and Pss. of the songs of Israel’ (Klost., Kittel) is syntactically easier, but
776 80 and 81 from that of Bethel (!). Dr. Peters is still not parallel to d. ESBA seems to have found a difficulty in
also of opinion that Davidic psalms, edited, adapted, p*yj (3rprpsre;s $ a h p o i ’ I u p a v A ) . The parallel opening of
added to, and subtracted from, and therefore hardly Balaam’s third and fourth oracles suggests SF ’’a! yew, and
to be identified, survive in our Psalter. this would fit in well with n. 2.
2 7 L Z , May 14, 1892, col. 252. In E x - . T.1 2 (1901) 288 he
Kirkpatrick3 represents a less original type of says that, in his opinion ‘the majority of the psalms will have
passed throug) a whod series of phases before reaching their
1 When Kanig states that OPs. 1931: 205 admits a Davidic present form. This opens the door to a large acceptance of
element in Ps. 18 he is evidently under a misunderstanding as pre-exilic elements, and seems an exaggeration: at least, the
will appear from the phrases in OPs. (’inspired by the teac&ng evidence adduced in Budde’s discussion of Pss. 14 and 53 seems
of the higher prophets’; ‘inconsistent with Davidic author- hardly to warrant the hypothesis, so far as this psalm in its
shin ’)
I twofold form is concerned.
2 Npw WOYZ~, June 1893, pp. 303f: 3 Religion oYIsraelto the Exile, 198.
3 Di7~ineLi6ruuy of the OT (1891), 150.152; Book OfPsaZms 4 ‘The Book of Psalms,’ etc., in Semiiic Studies in Memory
(189r-1895), Introd. xxxiif: ; also pp. 14, 20, 73, etc. 7 f A . Kokui (1897), p. 115. Dateofessay, 1896.

3935 3936
PSALMS (BOOK) PSALMS (BOOK)
details of his system. According to him, the oldest of no significance. With regard to the remaining
psalm, among those which have a clearly defined date, parallelisms it would be permissible to suppose that the
is 137, which has been adapted from a popular song, impassioned prayer in Ecclus. 36 1-17, together with
written during the Babylonian exile. Yet, strange to 35 18-20, was inserted during the Syrian persecution, for
say, Duhm cannot mention any psalm which specially it is certainly unique in the Wisdom of Ben Sira. Too
suggests the Persian period for its composition. On plainly. there is no agreement as yet with regard to the
the other hand he assigns not a few psalms to the pre- course to be adopted. Nor are the critics even at one
Maccabzean Greek period-viz., 3 4 11 16 42-43 (23 as regards the amount of indirect value to be attached
27a?) 46 48 5 1 (?) 52 62 76 87 (?) ; to the Maccabaean to the headings of the psalms, and the grouping of the
struggle, 12 (?) 13 (?) 246 (?) 35 44 55 69a 7 4 77 79 83 psalms in ' minor Psalters.'
118 149 ; to the time of the Asmonaean high priests. This uncertainty is regrettable, but need not surprise
60n 66a 606 85 99 101 1101-4 ; 2 18 (144a and b ) , 20 us. It is only recently that the objections to a post-
21 45 61 63 68 72 846 89 132, and a large number of exilic date for the priestly code, with the
19. On attendant narratives, have been generally
pre-exilic
psalms, including 9 10 14 56 57 58 59 64 82 92 94 140
(psalms which, he thinks, show a remarkable resemblance admitted to be invalid, and it is intelligible
to the 'Psalms of Solomon') to the Pharisees as that some critics, jealous for the honour of
opponents of the Asmonzans. This goes far beyond early Israelitish religion, should declare themselves
the views of Wellhausen ( ' Psalms,' SBOT, 1898), and unable to form a satisfactory picture of pre-exilic re-
those enunciated by the present writer in 1891 (Or@ ligion without some distinct evidences that the teaching
of the Psalter). of the prophets had begun to produce in individuals a
Evidently the criticism of the psalms is still only in a sense of personal communion with God. I t is also
vigorous youth. There are still some critics who hold intelligible that the discovery of early Babylonian and
Assyrian hymns should have awakened a desire to be
m2a:Ean pre-exilic and even Davidic elements in
the Psalter to be possible or even probable,
and while Budde,l Rriggs,2 and Oort a
able to point to early Israelitish hymns, and that the
modern longing to find organic development every-
psalms' have expressed considerable scepticism as where should have produced in some critics an inclina-
to the feasibleness of dating individual psalms, the tion to be somewhat easy in the matter of evidence for
present writer in 1891 and Duhm quite recently have early Israelitish hymns, which must, as they rightly
thought it to be often possible as well as desirable to assume, have been produced, and have influenced the
search for a probable historical setting of psalms, many form, if not the ideas, of the later psalms.
of the psalms being clearly the offspring of moods Nor is it likely that the belief in pre-exilic psalms
produced by definite historical circumstances. As to would hold its ground, even if no fresh critical start
Maccabzan psalms, which are certainly by no means were to be made. T o those who have passed out of
inconceivable," whilst Konig ( E d . 403) can only see the semi-traditional phase of criticism the arguments
his way to recognise one Maccabaean psalm-viz., 74- offered for pre-exilic psalms in our Psalter cannot appear
many (e.g., Baethgen, Kautzsch, and Cornill) declare to have much cogency. Prof. Kantzsch, for instance,
that, a t any rate, Pss. 44 74 79 and 83 must be early claims as such (though without dwelling much on this
. ~ Merx (Fesfschrifit zu Ehren zIon D.
M a c c a b ~ a n and trite argument) the psalms referring to a king. I t is
Chwolson, 1899, pp. 1 9 8 8 ) undertakes to show that more interesting to find that he rejects the theory that
even in book i. there are manifest traces of Maccabaean different views were taken in post-exilic times as to the
transformation of earlier psalms, whilst Ps. 2 itself is of origin and importance of the sacrificial cultus. Such
the very latest period. Driver (p. 385) appears to differences, however, are to be found in other great re-
stand nearer to Kautzsch than to Konig; the only ligions (e.g.,Brahmanism, Zoroastrianism, Christianity);
member of the group of four psalms which he omits is why not also in early Judaism? No one would be so
Ps. 44,'j but he allows (p. 389) the attractiveness of unwise as to suggest that any of the psalmists, at any
Robertson Smiths Ochns-theory (5 23). I t is difficult, rate if temple-singers, were directly opposed to the
however, to separate Ps.44 from Pss.74, 79, and 83, sacrificial system; but there were probably not a few
though certainly there are excellent grounds for question- psalmistswhowrote with a view tothe synagogue-worship,
ing its unity. If we accept MT as substantially correct and, even apart from this, no psalmist who had any
(against which see 5 28), it would seem that we must affinity to Jeremiah (see Jer. 7 z z J 88) could miss the
either, with Robertson Smith, assign 44 (or rather 446), sublime truth that obedience and thanksgiving were the
74 (or rather 7 4 a ) , 79 and 83, to the time of Arta- true ' divine service.' l It is highly improbable that
xerxes 111. Ochus, or (since the evidence for that king's Kautzsch regards B. Jacob's treatment of psalms like
oppression of the Jews is defective [see 5 231) follow the 40, 50, and 51 as adequate and satisfactory. Kautzsch
majority of critics and make them Maccabaean. T o does not deny the spiritualising Jeremianic tone of these
the latter course Prof. Schechter would object that thc psalms ; but he accounts for this by the theory that they
parallelisms between Ps. 4418 [19] and Ecclus. 4611c arose before the priestly code had arisen--i.e., that they
and between Ps. 7410 f: 13 and Ecclus. 366 f: IO are pre-exilic. Now, the theory of late pre-exilic psalms
exclude a Maccabzan origin.' Of these, the first is influenced by Jeremiah, formerly held by the present
writer (Book of Psalms, 1888). will not stand a close
1 TLZ,14th May 1892, col. 254 ; that Budde should guard examination. Jeremiah's influence was felt not by his
himself from an extreme statement, was only to be expected.
2 New Worid, March r g w , p. 176. contemporaries but by posterity-a posterity which, to
3 I n a passage attached to the posthumous essay of Kosters d o honour to the spirit of prophecy, thought fit to
on the P d n s of Solomon (r898), p. 33. expand largely the contents of the roll of Jeremiah's
4 The vague phrase 76. lhha m k p m BipAia (not +) in the
Prologue to Ecclesiasticus permits us to hold that the canon of works. And with regard to the difficulty of conceiving
the Kethiibim was still open. On ~d TOG Aavr8, 2 Macc. 2 13, how utterances of a non-sacrificial view of religion could
see Wildehoer fret Ontstaan van den Kanon des Oudm VeT. have found admission into the larger Psalter, we may
(i
bondd3), 137 collection of Davidic psalms, such as 3-41). fairly ask how, after Pss. 40 and 51 have been admitted
5 Even Delitzsch held 74 and 79 to be Maccabzan (cp
OPs. 103). into 'Davidic' collection^,^ and Ps. 50 into a fasci-
6 Ps. 83, however, he includes doubtfully. culus of a Asaphite ' psalms, the psalms referred to
7 5Visdorn of Ben Sira (Cambridge, 1899), pp. 26, 37. could have been finally rejected by any editor. W e
Schechter overlooks the conventionality of psalm-composition.
I t would have been better to quote passages from works in may also express the opinion that the predilection of
which the difficulties referred to were expressly dealt with,
except of course so far a s relates to Ben Sira. There is no 1 See OPs. 364-367, and cp JEREMIAH, 8 4, end.
more characteristic doctrine of the early Judaism than the Z A TW[~8971,1767 z 7 p 7 9 .
typical character of the early Jewish history. The psalmists 3 We leave the name David' as yet unquestioned (see'
knew i t well, and acted upon it. below, B 26 141).
126 3937 3938
PSALMS (BOOK) PSALMS (BOOK)
the guardians of religious classics for uniformity belongs knowledge of the history of the period into which they
to a more advanced stage of theological development. are to be fitted is so imperfect, that no satisfactory
Another remark of the same critic (Kautwch, in Th. conclusion can be drawn from them until the more
Stud. u. Krit. as above) seems to deserve notice. It external data have been fully estimated.’ H e then
relates to the ‘antique rust‘ which all the labours of quotes the opinion of a ‘judicious German scholar ’
editors of the psalms could not altogether remove from (Budde), that the parallel texts, the Elohistic redaction
certain early psalms. For a genuine m u f o vetustatis of Pss. 42-83, and the separate collections indicated by
we must all have great respect. But the value of the the titles, may form an invaluable basis for the history
linguistic argument in OT criticism has been ex- of the Psalter, and proceeds to give ‘ a specimen sug-
aggerated. Kautzsch himself would surely admit that gested by Ps. 79, of the kind of considerations on which
‘ antique ‘ forms, &rat Xeybpwa, etc., may often be due stress might well be laid.’ These considerations have
merely to accidents in the transmission of the texts ;1 to do with the steps which must be supposed to have
and his own very long list of corruptions in the text of intervened between the composition of this psalm and its
the psalms (see Die h i l Schrif, ’ Beilageu,’ 69$), inclusion in the LXX version, and taking them together
which might easily have been made considerably longer, Sanday finds it extremely difficult to get them into the
detracts from the force of his remark. interval between the Maccabaean revolt and the date
The only other critic whom it is important to notice ( IOO B. c. ?) of the Greek Psalter. H e is aware (256,
here is Budde, who, perhaps unintentionally, identifies n. 3)that ‘even writers so conservative as Driver and
two statements which ought to be carefully separated. Baethgen allow the existence of Maccabaean psalms,’
That pre-exilic psalmody may well have influenced the but apparently does not think it safe to admit that the
form of post-exilic compositions is one proposition ; few psalms contended for in the first instance by these
that pre-exilic psalms, or parts of psalms, have passed scholars made their way into the composite Elohistic
into our Psalter is another. As stated above, we have collection, the bulk of which is pre-Maccabzan.
no sufficient grounds for thinking that the religious A plea for revision of currently-held opinions is
teaching of the higher prophets found any wide accept- always welcome, and we shall wait to see whether any
ance among the people. Some influence, indeed, it critic attempts to write the history of the forniation of
may have exercised (Jeremiah evidently had powerful the Psalter on the lines proposed by Sanday. For our
friends), but not enough to account for the production own part, we do not believe that that vivid realisation
of poems like our psalms. W e may, therefore, reaffirm of the meaning of the psalms, which is the grand object
the position that- of exegesis, will be brought nearer to us by such a
’ In spite of the analogies from the Chaldaean the Vedic and procedure. W e have to open our eyes to the pheno-
the Zoroastrian hymns, it is not possible to hbld that th&e is mena of the Hebrew text, and learn to detect the true
any large2 admixture of old and new in the Hebrew Psalter ;
almost every psalm might he appropriately styled ‘a new song.’ text underlying manifest corruptions ; only then will
And even if any relatively old songs were used as models by the main problems of the Psalter become revealed to
the temple-poets, the preference would surely he given to those us. Even apart from this, the course recommended
inspired by the teaching of the higher prophets, such as
the lyric fragments incorporated into the Second Isaiah.’3
... by Sanday is not a practical o n e ; we could not wait
Prof. Robertson Smith’s criticism, then, when com- for the history of the formation of the Psalter before
Dared with that of other recent critics. mav be regarded
20. Robertsoll as fairly representative of that current’
- attempting to study the historical allusions. Even to
be mistaken would he a less misfortune than to be
at the close of the nineteenth century ; thrown back on the dim, colourless exegesis of Hupfeld
Smith.
. -
and it is no dimaraeement to it to
remark that its defect lay partly in its too mechanical
and his school. Robertson Smith himself was by no
means an extreme advocate of the external d a t a ;
character, partly in its want of a sufficiently firm textual indeed, he helped forward the study of the historical
basis. allusions when he put forward the ‘Ochus theory’
First of all, the critic lays, it would seem, a somewhat ex- (see 5 21) in a more plausible form-a theory which
aggerated stress on the Psalters within the Psalter, and on his may be right or wrong, but pointed in the right
theory of the development of the singers’ guilds. He did not direction. and made it possible for some critics to
undertake the comparative work required for distinguishing explain Pss. 44 74 79 83 historically, without having to
other groups than the traditional ones-viz., those which are
proved to exist virtually by close affinities of language and meet the difficulty (be it great or small) inherent in the
ideas, and deserve not less consideration than those which, Maccabaean hypothesis. These critics had no pre-
judging from the titles and from other external evidence, have judice against the study of external data, though they
still an objective existence as ‘minor Psalters.’(
In the next place, he did not, it would seem, fully realise the could not accept Sanday’s attempted rectification of
state of the Hebrew text of the psalms, which, when closely boundaries. One of the most obvious gains to be
examined turns out to he in very many parts corrupt, nor did expected from further study is the discovery of some of
he recogiise the fact that by a combination of old and new
methods the text can often be restored with a high degree of the sources from which the collectors of the ‘minor
probability, or even with certainty. Psalters ‘ drew, for clear traces of earlier collections are
T o this must he added that he does not appear to have con- still traceable in the Psalter. It is certain, however,
sidered the question whether some of the psalms, in addition to that much greater results than this may be looked for
those recognised as such by Ewald (19 24 60 [?I 66 108 144), may
not be composite.5 from the adoption of a more frankly critical attitude
A somewhat similar point of view is represented by towards the traditional text.
Sanday, but with a retrogressive tendency not observable
21. w. Sanday. in Robertson Smith. In his Barnpton 111. FRESH SURVEY O F PSALTER.
Lectures (fnspiration,1893, pp. 256f: It is now our duty to take a survey of the psalms,
2 7 0 8 ) Sanday points out that the historical allusions in assuming the results of such a criticism as is described
the Psalter ‘ a r e for the most part so vague, and our 22. R.esh in the last paragraph. Before doing so
of (see § 27),however, we have ( I ) to consider
1 OPs. 462. Psalter. (makingour statement ascompact as possible
2 This cautious adjective might now be omitted. inview of the heavy demands upon our space)
3 OPS. IO&
4 Cheyn;,h Semitic Studies in Memory of Alex. Kohut, Robertson Smith’s theory that certain psalms refer to
114. The principle of virtually existent groups has been the time of Artaxerxes Ochus (5 23), ( 2 ) to take up a
adopted by Ewald (Psalmen(3, 1866), by the present writer position towards G. B. Gray’s theory respecting the
(OPs. 1891), and with regard to a group of eleven psalms (22 25
31 34f. 38 40 49 71 102 109) by Kahlfs (9jy und ljy in den royal psalms (5 24),and (3) to put side by side with
Psalmen, 1892). The date akigned by Rahlfs to the psalms of the traditional readings (which have received such con-
this group is late in and soon after the exile. flicting explanations) of the headings of the psalms in
5 The importance of this has been specially noted by J. P. MT, readings suggested by a careful criticism of the
Peters (New World, June 1893, pp. 287J) ; the idea was not
new, but needed to be brought into greater prominence. text, some of which appear to be approximatelv certain,
3939 3940
PSALMS (BOOK) PSALMS (BOOK)
others distinctly probable, and a few, a t any rate, more As for Is. 63 7-64 xz [II], though the supposed oppression of
possible and plausible than those which are commonly the Jews by Ochus would afford a full explanation of its gloom
and despondency, we must regretfully hold that this is not the
received (J 24). true key to the difficulties of the section, and must look out for
Feeling it difficult to make Pss. 44 74 79 later than a new and more solidly based theory which will account both
the Persian Deriod. Robertson Smith revived a n earlv for this passage and for the related passages of the Psalter.
. I
Nor shall we long look in vain (5 28, v.; P ROPHETIC L IT., $43).
view of Ewald (Dichter des Alten
23. ochus BundesW [1835], 353 ; Hist. 5120, G. B. Gray’s theory of the royal psalms (IQR, July,
n.\ that the occasion of these usalms is to be sought - 1895.. pp. 658-686)
oraJr
~~ . is a n able attempt to show that
on even those psalms which. in so far as
in the history of Artaxerxes Ochus. Between 363 and
345 there were two Palestinian rebellions against Persia roJral
~~

psalms. they refer to a king who is neither


Yahwb nor a foreigner, may seem to
(cp I SRAEL, 5 66), and it is at least possible that the Jews
may have failed to resist the temptation to take part in be necessarily pre-exilic, can be explained as post-
one of them. The reputation of Ochus for cruelty is exilic without resorting to the improbable hypothesis
well known (P ERSIA , 5 20), and it has till lately not that they refer to an Asmonsean king (or kings).
He thinks that in Pss. 2 72 18 89 21 the king referred to is an
been questioned that he punished the Jews severely for idealisation of the people with reference to its sovereign functions,
their rebellion. W e have information of a conflict of and that the expressions used in these psalms can only, or at
the Persians with the Jews which ended in the destruction least most satisfactorily, be explained by the circumstnnces, not
of Jericho, and the transportation of a part of the of an individual monarch, but of the (royal) nation. In Ps. 61,
probably also in Ps. 63, the poet speaks in the name of thq
Judzean population to Hyrcania and Babylonia. Ac- nation, and consequently appropriates the term ‘king.
cording to Robertson Smith the narrative in Josephus Possibly Pss. 20 and 110 may be analogouslyexplained. In Ps.
(Ant. xi. 7 1) of the pollution of the temple by Bagoses 33 the reference is purely proverbial, and Ps. 45, the interpreta-
tion of which is specially difficult, may excusably be left out of
is really ‘ a pragmatical invention ’ designed to soften, account.
as being a divine chastisement, the outrages on city This view does but give a sharper outline to a view
and people committed by order of Ochus. Wellhausen to which some of the best scholars have been tending-
too appears to hold (or to have held) a similar view viz., that the ideal king referred t o in certain psalms is
(IJG, 146), and Marquart (Unters. ZUY Gesch. zon a representative and virtually a personification of the
E m n , 25) infers from the passage in Josephus that a people. As the text stands, we find post-exilic Israel
part of the Jewish community rebelled against the spoken of as YahwZs anointed one in Ps. 28 8 89 38 51
Persian rule. Many, too, have supposed (with [3952] Hab. 313,’ and it would have been but a step
Gutschniid and Niildeke) that the wars of Ochus form further to call the people of Israel by the ordinary royal
the historical background of the Book of Judith. title.
Unfortunately, all this is only plausible. Moreover, W a s this step actually taken ? Hardly, if it be true
one part of the evidence (that relating to the destruction that there are in the prophetic literature distinct
of Jericho) has been shown by Reinach to refer to a announcements of a future ideal Davidic king. T h e
much later period (see col. 2202, n. z), whilst the religious phraseology of the Jews would surely have
second-hand evidence of the Byzantine chronographer been thrown into hopeless confusion if ‘ king’ sometimes
Syncellus,a though accepted by such a keen critic as really meant ‘king,’ and a t other times signified ‘people.’
Marquart, cannot be held decisive. Willrich-a keen There were honourable titles enough to give the personi-
though perhaps somewhat too sceptical critic-claims fied people-’ son of Yahwk,’ ‘ servant of Yahwk,’ and
Josephus as a witness against Persian oppression of the even perhaps ‘YahwC‘s anointed one.’ T h e phrase
Jews, and quotes the passage, c. Ap. 211, 5 134,which ‘ Yahwk‘s anointed one,’ if our text is correct in reading
states that whereas the Egyptians were servants to the it, is specially important. because it ‘is either applied
Persians and the Macedonians, the Jews were free and or applicable to any one who has received from God
ruled over the cities round about. H e holds that in some unique commission of a directly or indirectly
the passage, Jos. Ant. xi. 7 I , ‘ Bagoses [ v a y . Zect. religious character’ ; in other words, it does not
Bagoas] the general of the other Artaxerxes’ (&hXou necessarily connote royalty. When we consider that
Apr.), ‘other’ is an interpolation, and that it was the psalms addressed to the king, or relating to the king,
Christian chronographers who, through identifying had probably come down to our psalmists from pre-
Bagoses with BAGOM (4.v. ), converted Artaxerxes exilic times, it is very bold to assume that the psalmists
Ochus into a persecutor of the Jews.3 sometinies use the term ‘ king ’ as an honorific title for
It is true that from a n exegetical point of view there the Jewish people.4
is much to be said in favour of Robertson Smith’s view A problem, however, still remains to be considered.
which explains Pss. 44 74 79 by cruelties, partly in the If it be true (as the present writer has provisionally
nature of vengeance, partly dictated by religious op- maintained 5) that it is only in Pss. 101 and 110 that a
position, on the part of this Persian king. Unless we historical sovereign is spoken of, how are we to account
are prepared to assign a good many mure psalms than for the strange addresses in other royal psalms to an as
44 74 79 to the Greek period, it is certainly unadvisable yet non-existent personage, as if he were already on the
to assign the psalms mentioned either to the time of Messianic royal throne? W e must return to this
Ptolemy Lagi (who treated Jerusaleni with cruelty 4, or question later (see § 34, end).
-a more plausible theory- to that of Antiochus With regard to the headings of the psalms, no scholar
Epiphanes. In the matter of historical criticism, will presume to disparage the work of many generations
however, we are all, by further experience, hecorning 25. psalm of learned predecessors. I t is high time,
more and more exacting, and it appears hazardous to headings. however, to take a step in advance. The
build such an important theory on doubtful statements theories at present in circulation have for
of uncritical writers.5 the most part but little to recommend them. Even a
phrase a t first sight so transparent as i 1 - h ( E V ’of
1 20 31 ; OTJCP) 2 0 7 3 438.
EHQ) David ’) occasions no slight difficulty.
2 Ed. Dindorf. 16x6.
3 Iudaica (~gdo),‘pp. 35-39. 1 See also Smend Rel.-gesch.F) 373-375; Wellh. ZJGi3)
4 For the evidence see col. 2426. That Jerusalem was 207. Smend has now’given up the supposed reference of Ps. 2 to
occupied and severel; treated by Ptolemy Lagi cannot he Alexander Jannzus (ReZ.-gesclr.@J384). and holds with Gray.
doubted (cp OPs. 114); hut Appian’s rv&pjcfL dakes a very 2 See Psalrrzs in SBOT 176 (cp 164, n. on 2 7), and Isaiah
strong demand on our confidence. A mhch better authority in the same series, 196,
would be required for the theory that the temple itself was 3 OPs. 338.
destroyed 011 this occasion. 4 Toy’s clear and instructive essay, ‘The king in Jewish post-
5 The present writer was the first to accept Robertson Smith‘s exilian writings,’JEL 18 [is991 156-166, does not directly refer
argument in UTJCI21 438 as historically probable (New World, to this question.
Sept. 1892; Founders, 220 8 ; cp Intr. I s . 3603). Beer 5 J w . ReC. Lzfe, 105. A different view is taken in the
(Zsdiw. PsaZmen, etc., 1894) also adopted the new theory. present article.
3941 3942
PSALMS (BOOK) PSALMS (BOOK)
According to Keil it was the custom of Arabian poets n&?-i.e., of Salmah=b‘ne Salmah. I n Ps. 9 1x9 nm+y (see
to attach their names to their works. This, however, 18)should be nD5b .Ill?. See (besides MAALOTH, MAHALATH,
cannot be shown. The old poets did not write their NEHILOTH)SOLOMON’S S ERVANTS C HILDREN OF], and observe
poems. Each of them had his riwi, or ‘reciter,’ who that 127 combines nrSy~-vn;, and ;1~\&--i.e., the error and the
learned each poem, and transmitted it to others. correction.
T h e Salmzans then were a division of the singers. It is true
Noldeke has shown that late Arabic poems are some- Salmah is a N. Arabian ethnic ; but the truth probably is that ali
times ascribed to ancient writers with an object ; also the divisions bear names indicating cians of N. Arabian extraction.
that narrators would illustrate dry historical narratives T h e result if accepted is important. T h e title ‘song of
by poetical passages of their own composition which degrees,’ blcomes in con;equence transformed into ‘ Marked : of
Salmah,’-i.e. officially attested (cp PSALM) as belonging to the
they assigned to their heroes. This is true, but does Salmiean collection. T h e question as to the relation of the
not touch the case of iiis, for only by the merest illusion Salmah clan to the Shallum clan (which in Ezra242 is reckoned
among the b’nC HOPrim or rather perhaps the b‘na ASBilrim; see
can the so-called Davidic psalms be said to be illustra-
IO, Jedifhun)cannot h&e he considered.
tive of the life of David. It is even more important to
2. Al.taS&Hh (nnw&, 57 58 59 75 and A i j P l f h hatS$zar
observe that the analogy of the titles nig -235 (EV ‘of
the sons of Korah ’) and qD& (EV ‘of Asaph’) is [upon] (li@g nkNh), 22. Probably from ‘n?”? i p s , ‘Of
directly opposed to the theory that ii+can mean ’ com- Ethan the Ezrahite.’ See (6) Efhan.
posed by David.‘ (Later writers may have given 1115 3. Asaph, qf(qC&), 50 73-83. ‘ Asaph‘ is evidently a n ethnic
this meaning ; it seems to be distinctly implied by the name ; its proximity to ‘ Nethinim’ (or rather ‘ Ethanim ’) in
Ezra241, etc. and (1 passages, suggests a s its original
subscription in 7220, ‘ Ended are the prayers of David
‘Zarephath,’ through the intermediate form n??b (Neh. 7 57 ;
the son of Jesse.’)
Then. too, how perplexing is the distribution of ‘07, Ezra2 55). C p Saph, 2 S. 21 18 ; lisa#hsiiph, Nu. 114 (see
MULTITUIIEMIXED). ‘Abiasaph ’ perhaps comes from ‘8rab-
psalms bearing the title i n 5 ! If, in spite of 7220, Ps. zarephath ; ;p Obed-edom =‘Arib-edom, ‘Abde ShEl6m6h [see
101 was regarded as the work of David, how comes it ~I=‘ArZb-Salmah. I t should be noticed that the title D’l>,bQ?,
to have been placed amidst psalms which are plainly prefixed to q?; ’J? in Ezra241, may originally have been
later than the time of David?‘ It is true, David was intended to refer to the o’lywz ’13(rather n w m ’I:), the nvn,
regarded in the time of the Chronicler as the founder of (rather mnw) and the no% * n’13 ~(rather d w 219 33;
the temple services as they were organised in his own i.e., all these clans were devoted to the service of song.
time. That, however, does not account for the selection 4. David, of(l!$), prefixed t o all the psalms of book i. except
of particular psalms to bear the honourable title i i i 5 , I z IO 33 (which have no title in M T ) ; to ZI in book ii ; t o I
and as Sanday remarks,a we should have expected in book iii. ; t o z in hook iv. ; and to 17 in book v. ; in all, to 78.
that the influence of the Chronicler, who (if it be not Lagarde says (Urientalia, 2 23)) ‘Just as English professors
can be called ’ Margaret,’ or ‘ Savilian,’or ‘ Hulsean,’ etc., so in
rather a later editor) ascribes to David a composite the temple choir one division could be named after David,
psalm made up of three obviously post-exilic psalms, another after Heman, or Korah, or any one else.” ‘ I t is no
would have been sufficient to bring the name of David objection that some titles refer to events in king David’s life
for ( I ) these appendages are worthless (David had other thing:
into the titles of the three psalms. t o bring before YahwS than those mentioned-e.g., in Ps. 3), and
Difficulties of this sort might be multiplied. How, ( 2 ) the headings are unknown to the Syriac, and are therefore
for instance, cap n&5, in 72 1 , mean ‘ Of Solomon,’ not a n original part of the collections of pialms’ (ibid.). To
when clearly the psalm consists of anticipations of the this it may be added that these a pendages have probably been
obtained by recasting a misreacf text, which said something
benefits to be enjoyed under some great king’s rnle? quite different (see $ q), and which, when we get the key, w e
6.it is true, renders e b uaXo[o]pwu ( i t - . , ’with re- Cali plausibly correct. 7175 (which even Lagarde assumes to
ference to Solomon’) ; but what right has it to be be authentic) has most probably come from niiq*5 (see 13,
thus inconsistent? And who can say that a perfectly Loves, song of), which in turn comes from ]VI>+, ‘ Of JZdithiln.’
satisfactory explanation has been given of the mysterious I t will be observed that in the titles of Ps. 39 and 62 the two
p v 5 (EV ‘ of Jeduthun ’), or of the so-called musical readings, ] i n d or iinn+ [‘’’Spy1 and 1115, are combined ;
notes ? also that, in 7220 ’c: j Z 2 (son of Jesse), and in 14410 1:pF
Now if a step in advance is to be taken, we must a r e presumably later insertions, based on misunderstanding.
not dream that it can be done by the application of the See io,Iedithun, of:
5 . Degrees, s o ? z ~ o See ~ I, Ma‘rilciih, flu, and 30, Song.
so-called inductive method, for which the Hebrew text
of the phrases in the titles is ill-adapted. Our only 6. Ethan flu Ezzrahife, of(’??l?? ]&, 89, and Menrorzal,
hope can be from a slow and persistent use of the t o make? ( 1
9
!0
!
)
, 38 70 (‘to he Sung a t the presentation of the
methods, continually becoming more refined and varied, AzkBri’?a-‘toconfess [sin] ’?4). ‘ E t h a n ’ a n d ‘Zerah’are both
S. Palestinian and N. Arabian clan-names. Why the editor
of critical (as opposed to arbitrary) conjecture. T h e has given us but one Ethanite psalm is a mystery. Probably
present writer has for a long time past endeavoured to however, ‘Jedithun’ (see I O) contains the name ‘Ethan. Se;
26. New ex- apply these methods. T h e following also 2, ALfaShith and Aijpleth haiSdhar ujon, and 26, .Mi-
manifh, on the. See E THAN .
planations. conspectus presents his results so far as 7. Giftifh,u on the (n*8yr!y), 8 81 84. Corrupt ; perhaps
relates to the statements in the titles con-
from n-!*ov&. See 30, ShZmixTth, upon the.
cerning the sources from which the psalms were
severally derived and (if .this be not a mistake) the 8. Heman the Ezrahite, Of(‘n?!?: I&), 88. See 6, 18,
also HEMAN.
liturgical use or performance of the psalms. So far as
9. Higgncin (fi’$l), 9 r6 [IT], followed b y (Selah), and
concerns the historical references mentioned in a number
923 [41, followed by ‘upon the lyre.’ Corrupt (see HIGGAION);
of titles. they will be given separately at the end of this i t is not a technical term at all.
article (I45). If the results are negative, they are also IO. /$di(8)fhlin, q,+; o r upon (pn& 39; jinn’-$y, 62;
positive; and who can say that the explanations for p * i v $ y , 77). Jedithun may come from ‘Arab- Tthan (cp
which, with extreme deliberation, substitutes are offered, J E D U T H U N ) or less probably from Jerimoth (nrny)= Jeremoth
are worthy of their place in commentaries and lexicons = Jerahmeel. I n I Ch. 25 4, Jerimoth’ is one of the sons of
which are otherwise, even if far from perfect, at any Heman. Obed-edom, or rather ‘Arab-edom [or +ram =jerah-
meel?], appears in I Ch. 1638 as the son of a Jeduthun. T h e b’ne
rate neither unprogressive nor unmethodical ?
-~
I. ‘Alrim8fh,upon (niD@Y), 46 [49]; Ma‘dZZh,the(ni5p?)),
1 Lagarde’s view o f ‘ David ’ a s a choir named after David is
and Ma‘dl8th,fw the(ni+y&), 120-134 fth
in 1-911: MahZafh, accepted by Zenner ( Z t . f: kafh. Theol. 15 [1891] 361 A).
upon p>fl&, 53, and with the addition of Le“ann8fh(ni,l&+), Against it see Xonig, Einl. 395, who is content to explain 5
88 ; N$ziicith, upon the (ni5,$?$), 5 ; Solomon,fh (&&), in 1 i l S as the 5 auctoris remarking that @ not only has (+ah&)
72 127. 72 A a v d (3 I ete.) but’also TOG A. (26 I etc.), quite apart from
t6e difference‘s of M S S (37 I 86 I).
All these (for S Y = h = S ) prohably. originated in X&& or 2 T h e author of this intermlation must have seen in Ps.72 a
prayer of David for S o l o m o i
1 C p Driver, in Sanday’s Oracles of God, 142. 3 So Delitzsch and Raethgen.
2 0 3 . c i f . 143. 4 Jacob, Z A T W l S 5 z 6 3 s (similarly in I Ch. 164).

3943 3944
PSALMS (BOOK) PSALMS (BOOK.)
JEdijthiin were, according to I Ch. 1 6 4 2 , ‘at the g a t e ’ ( l d ? ) - 20. A7:gindfh, on ( n i ~ ~ p4) 6, 5 4 6 F7 76 Hob. 3 19 (with
i.e.,‘door.keepers,’ O‘?Yw-but there is evidently some mis- uperfluous * attached), and once (61) on NFginafh (n!’ll-sp).
understanding connected with these door-keepers, and perhaps n G nlJ’Il2 is followed by n,?7F@g-h.Both words, NEginUtlt
theoriginal titleof theb’ne Jeduthun, as wellasofthe b‘ne Shallum md Shiminith, may be regarded as corruptions of the same
(Ezra 2 42) was O’?+K, ‘ Asshurites ’= ‘ Geshurites’ (cp I, end). briginal (see 26, Shetniuith, ujon).
In I Ch. 26 I 4 the same Obed-edom is represented as a Korahite 21. Nl;hi/dfh,on fhe. See I.
(i,e., Jerohamite?) ; see I. Observe ( I ) that in 39 and 62 pn+ 22. Praise (h?n), 145. Cp v. 21.
or iinii+p is followed by the false reading ~( 2i ) that
$ in the
; 23. Prayer (?I$?17 !),86 90 102 142. c p 7220.
headings of 18 and 36 nin, 1 2 ~ (‘of5 the servant of Yahwe’) is 24. Psalm (ib??), in the titles of 56 psalms. Probably from
a corruption of pi*$ (I1 mi$) ; (3) that in the headillg of 100 I l V 3 ‘marked,’ i e . , attested by a n official statement. See
pi*$ has become ;nin$; ( 4 ) that Ps. 70 (71) in 6 ’ s Hebrew PSALM.
text had the double heading iii$ and iim’ 929 (utou rwva8aS). 25. SiZEh (h), 71 times, also in Hah. 3 3 9 13, and (8cdWea)
O n ni??:in 45 see 13 ; on filly in 60 SO see 28. C p 4,David, of: Ps. Sol. l73r 1810. Perhaps from OjW), ‘for complementing,
11. j&afh-e‘lem-~J&&rn, upon (o’pnl Os! n$*-$y), 56. ;upplementing,’ whence perhaps Tg.’s ,in$y$. Aq.’s d&. Very
T h a t nlr--$y comes from ni]w-$y (cp 54f: 61 and see 20, Iften :y$o may be regarded a s a corruption of some word which
Nrginoth, upon) may he taken as fairly certain. T h e interpreta- s an integral portion of the psalm. See SELAH.
tion of o*pni O$N given in col. 2572 was affected by the view 26. SRhninitL, on fhe (n?p@7p), 6 12. Probably from
taken of the difficult nsm$ (now a t length explained with high l’?””? (N, imperfectly written, having been confounded with
probability; see 19). If the explanations of i i i and nip given v). T h e EthZnim, under the disguise of ‘ NPthinim,’ appear
here (nos. 4 and 12) are accepted, it will he difficult not to in Ezra258, etc. (sce Anrer. lourn. of Thad. July, 1901).
recognise underneath p p n l o h the phrase n.nipn-$u = Possibly too n Z ? Ok! in 92 should he read Ov!?’&>, ‘of the
[5~lnni*$,‘of Jerahmeel,’ which is virtually synonymous with Ethanites.’ Note the ascriptions of Pss. 88 89 90 (see 17).
the phrase which follows, -in$, ie., p y $ = n t p i * $(see IV). I t is not decisive against this view that B assigns Ps. 92 to the
12. Korah, of the s o w of (n?> *$?), 42 44-49 84f: 8 7 s Sabbath ; @ also assigns other psalms t o the other days of the
week (except Tuesday and Thursday); see 0 16. See also 7,
K ORAH (q .v.) is a southern clan-name. T h e true name, however,
11, 20, 28).
of this guild of singers was probably om’ ‘I1 (as if O$? ’J?, 27. Sltiggai8n (ji’$), 7, plur. in Hah. 3 I. A corruption of
‘sons of Jeroham,’ but really shortened from stp?; ’13, ‘sons n,pnw (,>=D),Sheminith; see 26.
of Jerahmeel’). ony was distorted (popularly?) into O‘nip 28. Shcishannim, upon (O*@+-sy), 45 69 ; Shc?shannim-‘2difh,
See 2 Ch. 2019, where, although the oynnpn ~ j 1 and the 9 1 1 upon (nllp O ’ ~ W V - ~ ~80 ) , ; ShCshan-‘2drith, ugon (iW?W-$Y
p,nipn are apparently distinguished, we can hardly doubt my), 60. Probably ‘Shoshannim’ and ‘Shiishan’ are cor-
(consistently with the principles of textual criticism we are ruptions of ‘Shgminith’ (see 26), and ‘‘cdoth’ of ‘ Jidithiin
applying) that o’nnjn and p n l p a are both corruptions of the (see IO).
same name-i.e., [’xlnni,. o ~ n occurs
~ p ~only once again, 29. Solomon, of: See I .
viz., in I Ch. 126, where it interrupts the list of names, and has 30. Song (i* in the
* titles
), of 30 psalms, also ($4) in Ps. Sol.
evidently come in from the margin, where it stood as a variant 15 17 (titles). Another corruption (see 24, Psalm) of OlDi?,
to on,? in the phrase ’-19 -11 (v. 7 end). On the possible mis- ‘ marked.’
conception a t the root of the Chronicler’s statements as to 31. To bring to remembrance, or To make memoviaZ (l’?l?$.
Korahite doorkeepers, see PORTERS, and c p IO,jedithun.
13. Loues, song o f (ill.!: l*@), 45. Shir and JPdidcith are See 6.
32. To ++each(l& 60,! and
’, in 2 S. 118. Either a corrupt
brought together by a mistake; n i * i *is a corruption either of
p+, ‘of Jedithun’l or of nb.!.?, ‘of Jerimoth’ (from which dittogram of ins,
or‘miswritten for $NDny$, a phrase synony-
mous with niDqv$ (cp 4).
name ‘ Jedithun’ comes). In either case, we may compare the
heading of Ps. 56, where n*,yni (pnip), i.e., pni,, and iii are One conclusion from the above emendations ( Q 26)
combined.* See 30, Song.
14. Ma&/ath, upon. See I.
15. Maschil. See 19.
LXX, in all parts of their translation .. .
are apt to stand
apart from the Palestinian tradition ; they frequently show
16. Michtxm (On??), 16 56-60. Perhaps from ill55 ‘sup- themselves to be unfamiliar not only with uncommon or ex-
ceptional words, hut even with those which one would have
plication’ (I>=b; n = 3 ) ; cp n m , 301 (title), from nznu.
~. See expected to he well known.’ H e illustrates this from Frl., the
MICHTAM.
17. Moses the man of God, of ( o ’ ~ $ K ~ ~ - w nwn$),
’K in 90; verb of which nX!D (according to Driver, ‘precentor’) is the
participle. ‘ I t is hardly possiblb that a word familiarly k n o w
- _ .7wn$=nWD
Accordine to SH‘adva. .. 9J15. of the sons of Moses En Palestine cirra 3 w B.c., and (in its musical connection)
=‘of the Levites’ (I Ch. 23 14). But the text is corrupt. Most retained in use in the temple services, should have had its
probably 3 ~ comes~ 5not from nn$c[>l,as we might a t first meaning forgotten there during the period of one to two centuries
suppose (cp I), but from Old!, ‘marked’ (see 24. Psalm); and which may have elapsed between 300 B.C. and the date at which
the L X X translation of the Chronicles and Ezra was made;
o*n$Nn w’N from ’il!T?? p’”, ‘of Heman the Ezrahite’ yet the translators of these books have evidently no idea of its
(see 8). 0.75~W,N is due to a remodelling editor, who had meaning when used in that connection.’ I t is admitted
before him a corrupt text, and made sense of it by the light ol however, that there is no passage in Ezra, and but one i;
Dt. 331 o * n h B*N nwn vi YWK im3n. Ps. 90 6 has in Chronicles in which ny] is used with reference to music and
fact t w i points of contact (vv. 136 15j, not indeed with Dt. 33, though Driver says that in I Ch. 1521 the L X X ‘show ;hem-
hut with Dt. 32. selves to be entirely unacquaintrd with the meaning of the
18. Mzith-/ab6in, ##on (I& niD+f)), 9. Most probably from verb,’ it does not appear that modern philology has succeeded in
showing what gXI$ means. RDE states that n’l‘nr$:-$y niiii?i
np!@ ???, ‘of the sons of Salmath.’ See I.
19. Musician, t o the c h e f (gX& in 55 headings, and in 7
!; means, ‘over the bass voices, leading them with nilia.’
Hab. 3 19.3 Probably from I s h > , ‘as a thing deposited ‘=‘tc But since ’31 is separated from h by n‘?’IJ$?, and since no
be laid u p in store’ (an Aramaism). March2 (>’?C*Q), in fifteen proof of the sense ‘bass voices’ for nycw can he adduced we
may venture to question this interpretation which neither v i the
psalms (see MAPCHIL)seems to be another cor& tion of the
same word. The sigkificance of the fact that &
gives fot
two other standard Hebrew Lexicons ratifies. Siegfried-Stade
rightly questions the text. Aziel and Shemiramoth have prob-
ns$&, r k ~b rihos, and has evidently no idea ,of a possible usc ably heen wrongly inserted under the corrupt forms, Azaziah
of the verb ns, in a musical connection, is not perhaps generallj and Sheminith, respectively : FXJS should be n+ (=i’,m,166).
recognized.4
See SHEMINITH. T h e L X X therefore d o not deserve the
1 So already Staerk ( Z A TW 12 136), with ( 2 S. 12 25:
imputation of ignorance of the meaning of 531 in a musical
as a n alternative original. connection, because the word has not yet been proved to have
2 I t will he remarked that according to our results ‘ Jerimoth a special musical sewe (for an ingenious hut very far-fetched
(cp 10) and ‘ Jeroham ’ both come from ‘Jerahmeel.’ suggestion, see Ges.-Huhl); and the fact that they substitute
3 According to Nestle ( Z A TW20 II~OO] 1 6 7 ~ 3 the
, technica nyj$ (see M US I CIAN, T HE CHIEF) for nloD$ suggests that the
note in Hab. 3 19 is properly the heading of the next psalm ir translator, whose aloofness from Palestine may be exaggerated
the collection from which this ‘psalm’ was taken. knew that there was no real Palestinian tradition on the sul,ject:
4 Driver, in a communication to Sanday (see the latter’! T h e Cintmerian darkness can only be mitigated by critical con-
Orucles of God, 146), says, ‘ I doubt greatly whether muct jecture. A possible and suitable one is offered above.
weight is to be attached to the ignorance of the L X X . T h e
3946
3945
PSALMS (BOOK) PSALMS (BOOK)
will be that the history of the development of the gitilds find ' the Arabians ' and the host of Terahmeel. '1 In
2,. Guilds of singers has been written with a n
of attempt at undue precision. That the
singers originally called b'ne Asaph (but
c p 2 Ch. 2 0 1 9 ~ )gradually split n p into many families,
some of which called themselves with special emphasis In n. 156 :
b n e Asaph, others b'ne Jedithun, others b'nE 'Those of Jerahmeel surround me, I they cry, We have
is a conjecture entirely based on the traditional Hebrew swallowed him up. 3
text. There is no reason why there should not have In v. 19 :
been from the very beginning of the services in the 'Let not the Jerahmeelites rejoice, I the men of strife'4
second temple, several guilds of singers (Neh. 1117 $EN* (cp 68316 1207, below).
scarcely justifies us in limiting the number to two ; see ii. Psalms 42-43.--In Pss. 42-43, the real or imaginary
B AKBAKKAR , B AKBUKIAH ). Their names may have background is also the oppression, not of the Baby-
varied somewhat ; but whichever names are preferred, lonians (as Theodore of Mopsuestia) but of the Jerah-
they are always (when closely examined) clan-names of meelites. We find mentioned the 'tribe of the Arabians'
S . Palestine or N. Arabia. One might be inclined to and the ' race of the Jerahmeelites ' (427 43 I ) . T h e
surmise that the latest of the names borne by any of speaker is apparently in the Jerahmeelite-Le., Edomite
these guilds was Salmah, or b n e Salmah ; the reason -region to the S. of Jndaea, where Yahwe was not
would be the occurrence of the group of Salmah songs acknowledged (cp 2 Ch. 25 14 m). Speaking in the
( E V ' songs of degrees ') in book v., and the very late name of a larger or smaller company, he craves the
collection called $uX/.toL ~ o X o , u ~ v ~( oi .se . , perhaps divine guardianship and to be restored to his true home
originally [see 26 ( I ) ] a$@ nib??, 'praise-songs of
-the house of God.
iii. P s a h 44.-Ps. 44 is composite ; 6 44n is appar-
Salmah '). But we must not be too positive as to this. ently the first part of a poetical retrospect of Israel's
Pss. 9-10, according to one of the statements in the title, ancient history (cp 78) ; 446 is a prayer of the innocent
belonged to the bni2 Salmah ( 5 26 (I), and it is not martyr-nation. The Davidic king has been set aside,
improbable that n n b *$on( E V ' Proverbs of Solomon ') and further resistance has become hopeless. Many of
in Prov. 10125 I originally meant ' Proverbs of Salmah' ; the Jews have been killed or carried captive by ' Jerah-
besides, in Ezra2, etc. (emended text), the Salmaeans meel ' ; others seek refuge where they can. Yet Israel
are co-ordinated with the Ethaniter. Ethanites, we is tme-sincerely true-to its religions obligatioiis ; it is
say, for we can hardly doubt that ' Nethinim,' both in indeed its strictness in this respect that so exasperates
Ezra2 and wherever else it occurs, is a distortion of its foes. How can Yahwk be angry with his people?
' Ethanim,' and not only ' Ethan' the eponym of the T h e real or assumed background, therefore, is not the
clan has two psalms ascribed to him (and probably time of Hezekiah and Sennacherib(cp Lagarde, Miltheil.
many more, see 5 26 [ I O ]), but the Ethanim or 2377), nor that of the Syrian persecution (Raethgen, etc.,
Ethanites, are mentioned, it would seem, in the titles after Theodore of Mopsuestia) but that of the (Jerah-
of two other psalms (see 5 26 [z6]). Nor must we meelite) exile (see above), soon after the fall of the
overlook the fact that what we have suggested as the Davidic dynasty. The psalm is one of a large group of
right meaning of n n h , and in some cases the reading, psalms, united by parallelism of contents, but is related
had been forgotten, a t any rate among the Jewish most closely to Ps. 60 and 89b, the former of which w e
scholars of Alexandria, as early as the time of 6. have next to consider.
As to the phrase 'the sons of Asaph' (=Asaph in iv. Psalm 60.-Ps. 60 has been thought to be com-
the psalm-titles), that Asaph should sometimes (in posite--e.g., most recently (1891) by Winckler ( G I
Ch. Ezra Neh.) represent all the bands of singers, and 2205), who, like Ewald, thinks he can recognise a pre-
ultimately he described (see A BIASAPH) as of Kora- exilic element in the psalm. The inconsistencies of the
hite affinities, need not surprise us. 'Asaphite' psalm, however, are illusory, and, as to the date, though
and ' Korahite,' ' Zarephathite ' and ' Jerahmeelite ' M T strongly suggests the early Maccabzan period, the
being in their origin virtually synonymous, a vague- present writer's text-critical results make him certain
ness in the genealogical statements was only to be that the oppressors spoken of are N. Arabian. The
expected. first stanza reminds us of Ps. 446, the second of 2 and
Proceeding now, after dealing with these preliminary 18 (see below) ; the third of 896. W e can only quote
questions ($8 22-27), t o take a survey of the Psalter, stanza 2, referring for the rest to P5.P)
we begin by taking- specimens from For with thee I shall break Geshur,
28. Historical different parts of it, with the object of I shall divide Cusham and h'laacath ;
backgrounds. getting a historical point of view, and I shall measure out Missur and Aram,
I shall cast the cord upon Zarephath.
select 35, 42-43, 44. 60, 74, 79, 83, 120, 137. Yahwe will conduct me to Migsur,
i. PsuZm 35.-Psalm 35 is one of a group of psalms Yahwe will lead me unto Aram.7
which are parallel both in tone and even in some v. PsaZm 74.-Ps. 74 is variously assigned to the
phraseological details to the Lamentations and to the
Jeremianic Literature. Now Lamentations 4 5 (see 1 Read $en??;n3ngn I O 9 3 7 G '? '11?2$. 2'1' is recognked
L AMENTATIONS, 5s 7f.)presuppose that either in the by @ here, hut not in Is. 4925 Jer. 18 19. on$ (Kal) is pre-
present or in the not distant past the Jewish people has supposed by @ both here and in 56 2 3. Both y?*and on5 may
been insulted and oppressed by the Jerahmeelites or fitly be questioned in the present passage (and on5 also in
56 2x); see Ps.PJ.
Edomites. W e have found reason to think that the
N. Arabian leaders were principals in the siege and
a For op? 'ly read O'!FDni'; and for 'Fy?;-b l$c
capture of Jerusalem and the captivity of the Jews, and read O'!Ny?t!. should'be ,I$?!' and should he
that even during the Persian period and after there had hW>?.
been a return of many of the captives in Edom, the 3 Read I;nJg$? 7 w y 'IIli?? $U??~I '2:.
Edomites continued to commit outrages, to annoy, to 4 Read pi? *WIN oh~pn?!InDW;-55.
plunder, and to oppress the pious Jewish community in
5 On the very singular corruption, or editorial manipulation,
Palestine. We could not be surprised to find evidence see Ps.PI.
of this state of things in the psalms, and as a fact we 6 Cp G. A. Barton's article in Amer. Journ. of ThoZ. (8 [18991
find it. I n 351, underlying very doubtful Hebrew, we pp. 744fi) which recognises the composite character of the
psalm, and bistinguishes three strophes, representing (this is the
1 The present narrative, 2 Ch. 20, appears to have been weak part of the theory) three widely separated periods.
altered from an older narrative (cp N EGEB 0 7, col. 3380). 7 On the very interesting corruptions see Ps.12) m, in ZZ. 5
2 Kijberle, Die Te?npels&zger im Alien) Test. (18gg), 150. and 6, is a fragment of o * n $ ~which,
, as usual in these psalms,
3 Thus 35216 and 25 are parallel to Lam. 216. has displaced n1;1?. Winckler, G I 2 205, has not observed this.
3947 3948
PSALMS (BOOK) PSALMS (BOOK)
ChaldrPan period ( ' everlasting ruins,' v. 3 n ; ' have set anticipation,l that is meant. ' Asshur' and ' Geshur'
on fire thy sanctuary,' v. 7n) and to the Syrian or are constantly confounded, and ' Amalek ' is only one
Maccahrean ( ' the synagogues,' v. 8 ; ' no more any of the common distortions of Jerahmeel.'
prophet,' v.g ; 'blaspheme thy name,' v. IO). Of the viii. P s u h 120.--Ps. 120 is admittedly no ' pilgrim-
phrases on which respectively the two theories are based, song.' According to Baethgen, it is the record of a
only that in v. 7a and that in v. IO remain in the present time when the party of apostates fanned strife and
writer's revised text. Whether the Babylonian warriors sedition in Jerusalem, with pernicious consequences for
felt sufficient bitterness against Judah to blaspheme the the righteous. Rather it is the sigh of a band of exiles
name of Yahwe. may be reasonably doubted; it was in the land of Jerahmeel (cp 42-43). Vv. 4J should
quite otherwise with the Jerahmeelites or Edomites not improbably run thus :-
whom (as also perhaps in Ps. Sol. 2, see 5 42) we believe ' Arrows of a warrior are the tongues I of the folk of Jerahmeel :
we can recognise in this psalm. There is nothing said Woe is me that,I sojourn in Cusham, 1 beside the dwellings
of Jerahmeel. 2
in the context about the defeat of Jewish armies (cp
ix. Psalm 137.--According to Duhm, Ps. 137 was
4411n 8944); but the couplet which not improbably originally a folk-song, which arose among some Jews
underlies 0. 3-
Hide thy poor from the wickedness of their neighbours who had fled or migrated from Babylonia not very long
The Jerahmeelites, the Arabians, and the Geshurites,l after the destruction of Jerusalem. Budde, too (New!
may probably be explained by 2 K. 242, where, accord- WorZd. 2 [1893]), infers from the metre that it was a
ing to a critically emended text. the enemies mentioned folk-song, and consequently dates it early in the exile.
seem to be the Cushites, the Jerahmeelites, and the But why the pentameter (Kina-metre) should indicate a
Misrites, combined with Jer. 39 3, where, originally, the folk-song is not at all clear ; Ps. 35 is no folk-song, but
princes named were those of the king of Jerahmeel (see it is in pentameters. Nor could a folk-song have con-
NEKGAL-SHAREZEK). ' The synagogues ' in v. 8 should tained such a glaring inconsistency-the enemy in an.
most probably be changed to ' the name of Israel ' (let 1-6 8f: being Babylon, but in v. 7 Edom- or have
us sweep away from the land). On the complaint, described the scene in such a n improbable and scarcely
' there is no prophet ' (v.g ) , see col. 2207. That the intelligible manner (vv.IJ). T h e psalm is cleared up
historical background is imaginary, seems very probable by the view that $32, as in Gen. 1010 Jer. 39 3, is a
(see col. 2207). W e now see what must be the true corruption of s~nni3.so that the opening verse becomes :
explanation of Is. 637-64 12 [II]. The inserted passage 'On the,heritage (nsnj) of Jerahmeel we wept, I remembering
(vv.12-17) reminds us of S912f: Is. 5 1 9 Zion
and v. 6 (with other emendations) :
vi. P s a l m 79. In I Macc. 717 Ps. 79 z f. are ' To thee also 0 house of Jerahmeel I plunderersshall come.
applied to the massacre of sixty leading ASSIDBANSby Jacob shall ;proot thee, andshall ov)erthrow 1 all thy palaces.'3
ALCIMUS,and the phraseology of I Macc. 1 3 7 (Kal This must be a near approximation to the truth.
+Xcav alpa bO&v K I ; K X ~TOO ByldupTos Kai hp6Xuvav T h e background here, as elsewhere, is imaginary.
~ i dyiaupu)
) seems to be suggested by vv. 13of this W e may now approach other psalms with the right
psalm. This does not, however, prove that the psalm key in our hands-viz., the well-grounded theory that
was known to have been composed during the Syrian the bitterness of so many psalmists and
persecution. In spite of Hitzig's attempt to show that
i t cannot have reference to the capture of Jerusalem in
psalms .,
29. Royal
: first, the despondency of still more was caused
ls and llo. by the cruel conduct of the Edomites
586 B.c., it is perfectly safe to explain it as referring to and their neighbours towards the Jews,
this, even if we incline to think that in this and the of which in the concrete we have hitherto formed a very
related psalms the historical background is an imaginary insufficient idea. Let us now return to the royal psalm^,^
one. T o deny that there was any slaughter of the Jews viz., 2 1 8 20 21 (28) 45 61 6 3 72 (84) (89) (101) (110)
' round about Jerusalem,' and that any other neighbours (132), to which I S. 21-10may be added.
but the Chaldzans were considered to have afflicted the i. P s a l m s 2 1 8 and 110.-Pss. 2 18 and 110 have a
Jews at this period, is very bold. At any rate, after our specially intimate connection ; the details of this depend
revision of the texts, we are precluded from assenting somewhat upon our views of textual readings, but the
to Hitzig. See 4423 'For thy sake Jerahmeel has fact of the connection itself cannot be set aside. Let us
killed US.'^ and the passage referred to above ( 2 K. take first of all the description of the king's warlike
24 z ) as to the hostile ' neighbours ' of the Jews. This energy. Even if we compare 2 8 5 1830-49 1105-7 only
psalm, however, is far inferior to 74, and has somewhat in MT, we find in all these passages the same extra-
the appearance of an imitation. ordinary fierceness which will not stop short of destroying
vii. Psulm 83.--Ps. 83 has been conimonly explained the enemy and establishing an extensive Jewish empire.
by the light of I Macc. 5, though Kimhi, Calvin, Until we critically emend the text, however, we do not
Delitzsch, and Lagarde, with what may now a t length understand this fierceness, this inhumanity. Ps. 28f:
be recognised as remarkable insight, prefer to explain runs thus in a text which has been slowly, methodically,
by 2Ch. 20, and Robertson Smith, as we have seen, and at last with much confidence revised,-
refers the psalm to the time of Artaxerxes Ochus. If, 'Ask (this) of me, and I will give thee
however, we apply to the difficulties of the text the The nations as thine inheritance,
critical processes which we have used elsewhere, the real The land's utmost parts as thy possession.
or supposed occasion of the psalm becomes manifest. Thou shalt subvert Zarephath and Geshur,
Thou shalt beat down Jerahmeel and Mizsur.'G
It is the banding of the N. Arabian peoples together
(cp Ps. 59)-first to harass, and then to destroy the very With equal clearness the much-misunderstood author of
existence of Israel-hetween about 602 and 586 B. c., of Ps. 18 reveals the secret of his bitterness. T h e whole
which the narrative in zCh. 20 may have been like an 1 The original story has been altered, owing either to mere
textual corruption or to a misinterpretation of history; or to
1 $ p l g \ D is a very improbable phrase for 'the synagogues.' both. Originally I t way probably a Jerahmeelite and Miyite
?yl n'g (S@E9 15) is a synonym for nmg . . . n'g, which certainly invasion that was meant.
2 Winckler's restoration of the text ( A O F 3 417) is very un-
dnes not mean ?$).in, 'God's meeting-place'; indeed Tg. satisfactory.
gives ~ n w n'2 for the Opp n7gof MT in Jer. 39% 58 '@pp 3 1
o+>e. my! hpn?; n'g +-og
is the most obvious correction ; but the obvious is often not the
true. Havingregard to 83 5 [41, we should most probably read D@
I
q*>2ws yg!? xpyi qp?p:
4 Compare above 8 23.
5#lo'.. The enemy's ultimate object was to destroy, not
T: 6 The numbers ehosed in parentheses are those of psalms in
sanctuaries, but worshippers. 1 3 1 ~ has probably come from which the word does not bccur.
sj
n*>v>. comes from a misplaced ijs. See further Ps.P). 6

2 i ~ p r p 9; 2 ; ~ for 01.n-52 l ~ ~ n .

3949
PSALMS (BOOK) PSALMS (BOOK)
passage referred to above would be too much to quote ; assertion of legal righteousness, and the Deuteronomistic
but here is one of the stanzas (vv.44-46 49c) :- phraseology employed.
44a Thou didst deliver me from the folk of the Arabians, I t is true, the speaker is equally bold in the assertion of a
49c Thou didst rescue me from the men of Maacah ; reward already received for his righteousness. But a poet a n d
446 Thou madest me the head of the nations, a fervent believer in the promises can take this imaginative
44c People whom I knew not became my servants ; license. T h e warlike energy claimed is not more surprising in
456 T h e sons of Gebal sought me eagerly this psalm than in Ps. 2 9, or rhan in 1406, where we learn that
45a T h e Ishmaelites became obedient un;o me ; faithful Jews (c*i,Dn) will know (by supernatural teaching,?)
46u They brought frankincense and gold, how to wield a two-edged sword. There is no need, be it said
466 They offered chains of choice gold. in passing, to bring auch psalms down to the Maccabaean
Now we see why, as the speaker says elsewhere, he period. T h e bitterness against the Edomites seems to have
been perennial, and a s they were probably types of all hostile
beat his foes as small as the dust of the market-place,' peoples fresh occasion for vehement psalms was always arising.
and ' swept them away as the mire of the streets' (v.43). The Davidic origin of Ps.18 has been thought (e.g.,
It was because of the divine law that men of loyalty by Delitzsch, Baethgen, Konig, and Kirkpatrick) to he
should receive the reward of their loyalty, and the guaranteed by the occurrence of the psalm (with varia-
proud and violent the retribution of their lawlessness tions of reading) in 2 S. 26, a passage which, together
(vv. 24-27 [ z 5 - 2 8 ] ) . T h e men of loyalty are the Jews ; with the m i Z l in 231-7. forms probably, as Budde
the proud and violent are expressly identified with the rightly states, the latest addition t o the Books of
Arabians and the Ishmaelites.
Samuel.' When the hymn in question was appended
Not less fierce is the language of Ps.110,nor does to z S., a liturgical appendix (v.51) referring to
the ordinary text suggest any palliating considerations. YahwP's anointed king and to David and his de-
Probably no psalm makes equally heavy demands on scendants had already been attached ; and the original
the textual critic. Applying our key, however, we title had been partly corrupted, partly deliberately
seem to see that Ps. 110 is based on that earlier narrative altered, so as to make the hymn suit as an illustration
which probably underlies our Gen. 14 (see MELCHI- of the life of David. The true text of the title (when
ZBDEK, SODOM A N D G O M O RR A H ), and represented the
emended according to the analogy of other titles, see
battle of the kings as fought near Kadesh, and the chief 5 45 ; cp 5 12)makes no reference whatever to David.
of the kings opposed to the king of Sodom as the king A Davidic, and even, more generally, a pre-exilic date
of Jerahmeel. To the psalmist this ancient exploit of is excluded by the idealistic religious and political out-
the divinely favoured Abram was a type of the still look in vv. 32 44 5 0 , by the Deuteronomic view of the
greater exploit of Yahwe himself in destroying the people covenant in vu. 21-28 and the Deuteronomic expressions
which had so cruelly oppressed the Jews. An approxi- in vu.zz-24, and by the points of contact between the
mate view of the original text IS,- psalm and the so-called song and blessing of Moses,
5 T h e Lord will shatter Jerahmeell I in the day of his wrath,
6 a H e will judge mighty kings I for the trea5on of their pride. Dt. 3 2 f : For it took time for the ideas and language
66 [The Lord] will smite GeshurA I on the land of the of Deuteronomy (which, moreover, is no longer in its
Arabians ;s original form) to affect religious literature. The psalm,
T h e kings of Rehoboth4 he will destroy, I the princes of however, appears to be of earlier date, not only than
Jerahmeel.5
Is any one of these three psalms a royal psalm, as re- Pss. 116 an$ 144 Prov. 30 (v.5), and Hab. 3 (a.19).
ferring either to a contemporary king or prince (such as but also than Is. 55 (v.5), unless, indeed, we hold (this
Alexander Jannzeus of whom Hitzig and Sniend have theory has much to recommend it) that 15.553-5 is a
thought) or to the Messianic king himself? very late insertion, made after Ps.18 had become mis-
(u) PsaZrnZ.-Certainly Ps. 2 is not. The antithesis interpreted as a triumphal song of David. References
to the Jerahmeelites and Arabians in stanzas 13 and 14
throughout is between Yahwe and his people on the one
hand, and the Jerahmeelites on the other. Partly complete the parallelism between the second part of
through accidental corruption of the text, partly through Ps. 18 and Ps. 2 (revised text).
editorial manipulation, Ps. 2 was made into a psalm of (c) Psalm 11O.-Ps. 110 remains. Is this a royal
the Messianic king. psalm? If so, who is the king or prince referred t o ?
I n the course of a thorough search for the underlying original Bickell and G. Margoliouth independently have noticed
text in?oD' his anointed ' and *j$n' my king ' naturally attract that vu. 1-4 (beginning with J@) form an acrostic with
suspicion. l w w n has probably arisen out of iimc (similarly in the name lyplj ; the rest of the acrostic apparently was
207 [ 6 ] ~ 2 8 8 8 4 1 o [ g 1 8 9 5 ~51]105r5),andtheword~,sodifficultto lost, the text of the psalm being mutilated and other-
translate satisfactorily, q& ' n 3 ~,381 j (v. 6), should probably be wise in disorder.
bn: i * p f ? + y l , 'on his dwellingplace h e has mercy.' T h e T h e present writer has shown3 that, if the text is correct
reason is ( I ) that 72!p (7). 2) and n?+n (v. IO) are certainly any other Jewish sovereign but Simon the Maccabee is hardl;
corrupt (read &Dni* ' Jerahmeelites '), and (2) that the reading conceivable as the subject of the psalm ; on the acrostic, how-
suggested makes the last couplet of stanza ii. correspond to the ever, it would he unwise to lay any stress,4 for nothing is easier,
last of stanzai., which should probably run,- but nqthing more hazardous, than to discover or imagine such
acrostics. If the psalm wasaddressed to Simon, we can plausibly
Let us beat down their sanctuaries, account for its imperfect form ; the omission of the latter part
Let us destroy their palaces. may have arisen out of a desire to facilitate a Messianic refer-
(b) Psalm 18.-Can we pronounce a different verdict ence.5 T h e view is plausible ; but plr ,I$n ,ni3i-!y (7,. +has
on Ps. 181 It is natural to think that the psalm is a not been perfectly explained, and p& in Gen. 14 is explained
dramatic utterance of David, and that its exaggerations elsewhere (see M ELCHIZEDEK ) as a corrupt reading.
are to be viewed as virtual predictions of a future son Using the experience which long converse with the
(or future sons) of David, who shall raise his kingdom text of the psalm ought to give, we arrive at the reading
to a height never attained by the historical David (so (for v . 4 6 ) , ' I establish thee for ever, because of my
OPS. 206). This is the view expressed in the liturgical covenant of loving-kindness ' (see MELCHIZEUEK).T o
appendix (v.51 [SO]. unless c is a later addition), but is whom is this oracle addressed? Evidently to the same
nevertheless wrong. The pious community is the person as the promise of the subjugation of his enemies.
speaker,' a s is plain from the otherwise far too bold T h e defeat of the king of Jerahmeel was a prophecy of
1 ',~oni, several times underlies p. Here i t is latent in
the overthrow of all subsequent enemies, provided of
71.n. 5y. course that the children of .4brani displayed their
2 Underlying WE(?. 3 Concealed under ~37. father's character. Must not, then, the true subject of
4 Underlying l i i 3 .
5 Dittographed, and underlying I J - $ ~and n*i*. 1 T o assert with Comill (Einl.(? 107) that Ps. 18 was taken
6 I n ReZ.-gesclP.I11 385; hut Sm&d now holds the people of into the Psalter from 2 S. seems not very judicious.
Israel to he the 'king' referred to. 2 See the instructive correspondence in the Academy for 1892.
7 I n support of this view we must not refer to the phrase 'of 3 OPs. 21-29.
the servant of Yahw5' in the title, for ql;l* i j p s , here, as in 361 4 Duhm (on Ps. 110) and Marti (Jesuiu, 242) think otherwise.
(see 8 25 [IO]), is corrupt. 5 Che./cw. Rcl. Life, ioj.

3951 3952
PSALMS (BOOK) PSALMS (BOOK)
the psalm be Abrani?' On this, however, we lay far Ps. 63 also refers to the hated enemy : but the intem-
less emphasis than on the previous results. All that perate language of v. I I [12] is due to textual corruption.
we can assert with confidence is that the psalm is not a T h e leading idea is simply this-that pious Jews, at a
royal one. If the text of v. 4a is correct, it predicts the distance from the sanctuary, and in peril of their lives,
perpetuity of a priesthood: if a n appeal be made to call upon Yahwi: to restore to them their priceless
' Melchizedck,' we reply that even Duhm, who accepts spiritual privileges. At the close of the psalm the
v. 4a, is prevented by his critical conscience from speaker expresses his confidence that YahwB will an-
accepting u. 4b. except after cancelling the inter- nihilate Israel's dangerous foes, and that Israel will
polated (?) 'Melchizedek,' and that if he had listened praise God for his goodness in the temple. Why
to his linguistic conscience h e must have qnestioned should a king be referred t o ? Both Gratz and Toy
the prosaic and ambiguous -ni>i-?y. But though the ( J B L 18162) have noticed the problem ; but the key
original psalm is neither royal nor Maccabcean, we was wanting. T h e clause in question comes after a
may plausibly conjecture that the text was edited and description of the sufferings caused to the Jews by the
conjecturally restored in early Maccabzean tinies with N. Arabian populations, and the right reading almost
reference to Simon. certainly is ai>* ymp: o h ~ , ~ m ; ', T h e Jerahmeelites
ii. P s u h s 20f.-Pss. 20 and 21 may also conceivably Y a h d will shatter. '
have been edited and partly recast in Maccabzan times. iv. Psadms 896 and 132.-Pss. 89 (or rather, 8 9 b 2 )
30, Secondly, We might thus account for the vehem- and 132 have been thought to refer to the Jewish people
ence which deforms Ps. 21,2 and which, 33. Fourthly, as YahwB's anointed. This at least
ps.2of. unless our well-tested principles of textual pss. 89b and IS plain-that the psalmist could not
criticism are altogether a t fault, did not appear in the have written the words ' they insult the
same intensity in the original psalm. Christian psalms, 13a.
footsteps of thine anointed' (v.51 [p]),
indeed, they are n o t ; but the bitterness is not so ex- meaning ' they insult thy people in its goings.' Nor is
cessive as has been imagined, and can be accounted for it easy to admit that after promising perpetuity to the
by the extreme provocation given to the Jews by the family of David (132 11f. ) and joy to the pious members
Edomites. T h e fifth quatrain of Ps. 21 and the first of the community of Zion (v.166), a psalmist could
half of the sixth should probably run nearly as proceed to say that on Mt. Zion Yahwb would cause a
follows :- horn to spring forth to David, and that he had prepared
Thou wilt put an end to the Rehobothites and the Ishmaelites; a lamp for his anointed. Thus there is only a slight
Thy presence 0 Yahwh ! will annihilate them. parallelism between the two psalms-viz., their common
The Zarepha6ites thou wilt make to perish from the land, reference to the perpetuity promised to the house of
And the Misrites from the face of the ground.
Yea thou wilt put an end to the Aramites and the Cushites, David. Ps. 89 records the deep despondency of the
Th;Rehobothites thou wilt rebuke to their face.$ community a t the apparent failure of the promises ;
When Pss.20 and 21 are looked at as wholes, it
Ps. 132 is a dramatic representation of the culminating
point in the traditional life of Solomon, with an under-
becomes plain that the speaker ought, in accordance
lying reference to the future Messianic king. In the
with parallels elsewhere, to be the pious community,
latter psalm, ' mine anointed ' (*nwn) needs no altera-
whose salvation in time of trouble brings joy to each
tion : in the former, criticism proves convincingly that
and all of its members (206a), and who can permissibly
7 n w D nnpy is a corruption of q ' y n ni&? ( ' the insults
be described both as a person and as a collection of
of thy loyal ones ') I1 to ?.my nil! ( ' the contumelies of
persons (20 10a and b ; 206 21 2 ) . . .
The only objection is drawn from q$n in 20 1o[g1 and q??
in 21 z [I], from in??? in 20 7 [ 6 ] , and perhaps from the I$ n ? g
in 21 4[3]. But the 'n in ?inn is dittographed ; 750 is a cor:
thy servants ').*
T h e most various opinions have been held as to the
relation between 1328-10 and z Ch. 641f: T h e form in
.
w-hich the passage is given in the psalm is surely the
ruption of p y (cp y and 5 in the Palmyrene script), and inwa
more original (cp Ehrt, Abfassunxszeit. etc., 6 6 3 ) ;
as in 2 2 of (cp also, especially, 28 SA). As for the ' crown but that does not prove that Ps. 132 is of later date
of choice gold,' it means no more thau what is said in 8 6 [SI, ' with
glory and state didst thou crown him.' than Chronicles. An interpolation in z Ch. from the
psalm seems very probable.
iii. Psalms 61 and 63.-Pss. 61 and 63 are obscure
v. Psalms 45 72 101.-Pss. 45, 72, and most prob-
only as long as we hesitate to criticise the MT. Ps. 61
Verse I [ z ] is a frag-
31. Thirdly, is composite.
pss. 61 and 63. ment of a psalm of exile, which is akin are both corruptionsof 5Nnni. (dittographed), while q'din is one
to Pss. 42-43; the rest of the psalm of the many corruptions of n3iy p in v. 86 probably comes
illustrates Pss. 2 21 83 110. It is enough to quote from a dittographed iqa: the preceding line should run
VU. 4-7 [5-8],-
p!?l t i a ? op;.
For thou hast heard my wail, 1 The parallel line has fallen out.
Thou wilt grant Israel's request ; 2 The compositecharacter of Ps. 89 is plain from the difference
He will shatter Jerahmeel and Zarephath,
He will heat them down like Moab and Midian. both of metre and of subject in the two parts. Verses 1-18 [2-19]
He will abide before Yahwk for ever, are mostly in tetrameters and describe the greatness of Yahwh
Lovingkindness and faithfulness will preserve him.4 and the happiness of his people ; m. 19-51 [20-52] are in tri-
meters and describe the promises to David and Israel and their
failure. According to Baethgen, 89 18[19] refers to the ideal
1 , 3 7 ~ ' 7 is most unlikely. Since iand iare scarcely dis-
king-the Messiah, who is risible only to the eyes of faith.
tinguishable, and '3 and 13 are constantly confounded, we may This is most unnatural. Unless we are willing to suppose a 5
provisionally read D i [ > 1 ~ 5 , and continue hDnlv2 [il>@I. of emphasis, we must read inh h i w ? w i i p i I 115 !ID nrn' '3,
i p ~may ~easily
, ~ ~ out of $xZni?oby metathesis
have~arisen 'for yahwh is a shield unto us, the Holy One of Israel is our
and slight corruption. king.
3 Sellin (Sem66a6e2, 1 9 4 3 ; Sturlien, 2 iqr ) thinks of
2 Duhm once more brings in Alexander Jannaeus.
ZERURBABEL [ q . ~ . ] ,the unsuccessful Messianicfng (?). But
3 We can only mention here that i i ~ n i (u. o I O ) probably comes the real or imaginary background of Ps. 896 is the Jerahmeelite
from D'#3hl, and ny5WN from D')Np?W:. .. 1BN2 isan editorial oppre-sion from 600 n.c. onwards.
4 Verses 5 r J [5o,f] represent the same couplet in different
insertion ; ::3; goes with D y. .h ;. (so point; cp Lam. 4 16). forms (see Ps.P)). Duhm thinks that 'UD ' j y may mean 'the
0 3 ~ 1 0probably comes from D$?! D?! ; Tm.133 from D9">fl? ; footsteps of thy fugitive king,' alluding to the'flight of Alexander
pnn from nT3'rn. Jannieus (88 B.C. ?); cp Jos. A n t . xiii. 14 ~ f :As if any psalmist
could have spoken thus of such a miserable king 1 Besides, in
4 On the emendations see Ps.P). We can only mention here Ecclus.472 there seems to he an allusion to Ps. 89zo[igI:
that 9 ~ 1 , in 7,. 56 comes from i ~ i m , that
, the followingword TDw 01113 (cp >niD'l?); and in Ecclus. 45 ige to Ps. 89 3 o [ z g ] : l Y l I 3 l
should be a corruption of p:,and that C'D' and w-iy m w vs3.
3953 3954
PSALMS (BOOK) PSALMS (BOOK)
ably 101, however, are royal psalms ; the king is the g Before him tho5e of Cush shall bend the knee,
33. Fifthly, Messiah ; every other view is encumbered ‘l‘lir Arabian?.shall lick the duat ;
IO l h e Ishniaelites shall bring gift*,
pss. 4 ~ ,2,, with difficulties,’ and the one difficulty ’I‘hohe of Shcba ahnll offer gold.
specially attaching to the present theory 101 1.ovingkirdiirss and justice will 1 xek, I YahwYs righteous.
and lol. which is enforced upon us by textual ne.., will I prxtise.
criticism, can be surmounted. The Messiah is de- To the caure oftlir orpbnn I will give heed, to the suit of the
scribed in all three psalms as a second Solomon. .. ...
Wi,I”W
Of course it is the later legend of Solomon that is built In Jerahmeel I will destroy I all the wicked ones of the land
That I may cut off from the land of Yahwi: I all worker; of
upon. wrong.1
We see this especially in the poetic picture in Ps. 45. Ad-
miring mention is made of the king’s singular wisdom and W e have now practically closed our consideration of the
eloquence (cp I K.429-33 [59-131 106f: 23j?), of his success in royal psalms, for on Pss. 28 and 84 it is enough to refer
war ( z Ch. 8 3). and of his righteous rule ( I K. 3 16-28), Of all 34. Ilesult. back to the remark (§ 29, i. a ; 30, ii.)
these divine gifts, the greatest is the king’s inflexible justice
(eulogised again in Pss. 72 and 101) of which his political that in’un, ‘his anointed,’ is several times
influence, his extensive commerce, and his vast supply of gold in the Psalter miswritten for n’Dn, ‘ his loyal (or pious)
( I K. 10) are the reward. I t is the crown of his felicity that he one.’ There are no royal psalms in the sense supposed
has a queen-consort, beautiful, and richly adorned, who is an by most critics ; there are three, and only three, psalms
Egyptian princess (see translation below, and cp 1 K. 3 I 111-3).
Lastly, the king addressed has a prospect of a family of sons, which are in the narrower sense Messianic, though in
whom (with an allusion to I K. 4) he may place over the pro- the broader sense a large proportion of the psalms deserve
vinces of Palestine. this distinctive epithet.
I n Ps. 72 the Solomonic element is much less striking. The
king is called the ‘king’s son,’ a phrase suggested by the coro- W e can now return to the question raised in a former
nation of 3olomon during David‘s lifetime, and glowing ex- paragraph (5 24, end), How are we to accouut for the
pectations are formed of the justice of his rule. He is tender addresses in certain psalms to an as yet non-existent
to the righteous poor but severe to the oppressor and more king? Any interpreter approaching Pss. 45 i 2 101
especially severe to those Cushites, Jerahmeelites, and Edomites,
who were the worst enemies of the Jews in the Babylonian and for the first time would suppose them to refer to a
Persian periods. This contemporary reference is more pro- contemporary king. Yet there are strong reasons for
minent in ps. 45 than in Pss. 72 and 101 ; but of its existence rejecting this view. The psalmists are not ordinary
criticism hardly permits us to doubt.
poets. They are all heroes of faith, and some of them,
Of these three psalms-the only strictly Messianic at any rate, hold strongly to the belief in the Messiah,
ones in the Psalter-brief specimens may be given. and regard the two kings who were specially idealised
The reader will find that where the translation appears by the popular imagination-David and Solomon-as
most novel, the text as it stands is singularly obscure. types of the expected ideal king. They trusted G o d s
A near approximation to the truth is, of course, all that promise, and prophesied the coming of the king by
can be asked. portraying him in the likeness of Solomon, as if he
45 6 Upon those that hate thee, 0 thou hero I thine arrows
will descend : were already on earth. ‘ For unto us a child is born,
They will fall upon the men of Arabia and Jerahmeel.2 unto us a son is given.’
76 A sceptre of justice is the sceptre of thy kingdom, W e will next take a brief survey of four important
8 Righteousness thou lovest, iniquity thou hatest;
Therefore peoples do homage unto thee psalms, which have been traditionallv held to contain
[All kindreds of the nations serve thee].’ 35.
of references to the immortality of the
* immortality individual. These psalms are two
IT Hearken 0 Egyptian maiden,a lean thine ear. (David) Tedithun-psalms. viz. 16 and
I -

Forget dine own people, and thine own fatheis house : 17 ; one Korah-psalm, viz. 49 ; a i d one Asaph-psalm,
12 For the king longs deeply for thy beauty ; viz. 73.
For he is thy lord [and Yahwe‘s Anointed] :
13 And unto thee will they how down, 0 Egyptian maiden, i. PsuZms 16 and 17.-Both 16 and 17 express strong
with gifts, love for the temple, and a sense of security derived from
The richest of [all] people will sue for thy favour. YahwB‘s presence in the sanctuary. Both also repre-
* sent the speaker as exposed to danger from the N.
72 5 H e shall crush the folk of Cusham, Arabian enemies, though the references are obscured in
And destroy the race of Jerahmeel ;4
6 He shall bring down Maacath and Amalek, our present corrupt text.
Those of Rehohoth and of Zarephath. Ps. 17 reminds us strongly of Ps. 22a in which the Jerahmeel-
* ite or Edomite oppressors are variouily designated (see Che.
Ps.12))as ‘lions’ and ‘wild oxen with pointed horns,’ ‘traitors’
1 As long as we adhere to the traditional text, it is difficult
(‘312, misinterpreted in v. 19 [IS] as ‘I:?, ‘my garments’), and
riot to look out for a post-exilic king to whom Ps. 45 in particular of Ps. 18 (a part of the description of the terrifying ‘snares’ and
may he applied, and Smend (Rrl.-gesck.Pl376, n. 2 ) still (1999) ‘floods’ given in this psalm recurs in 17 IO, restored text). Ps.
applies Pss. 45 and 72 to some Greek king. In PI (1893) he 16, in its triumphant contempt for outward dangers, reminds us
thought of Ptolemy Philadelphus for Ps. 72. The fullest treat- of Pss. 3 4 and 23.
ment of the claims of this Ptolemy to be the hero of Pss. 45 and The two psalms (16f.) are connected by their parallel
72 will be found in OPs. (IE~I), pp. 144-146 156 168-172 183. ending ; and both are akin to the large group of psalms
The Messianic hypothesis, however, is adoited ’in jew.’ReL
L y e , 106-108. Pratt ( J B L 19 [1900]1 8 9 8 ) finds a reference to expressing love of the temple, and especially perhaps to
the bridal relation between Yahwi: and his people, and supposes P s . 2 7 ~and to the miscalled royal psalm, 61 (cp 618a
a nucleus, consistingof a secular royal ode of smaller dimensions. with I611 1715).
Really, if we presuppose MT, we may form almost any theory. In Ps. 16 the speaker rejoices in the sure hope of deliverance.
Budde, in his treatment of Ps. 101 (Exp.T. S z o z f l . ) shows a In spite of his troubles, he continues to praise Yahw?, and his
freer spirit. He thinks that the psalm was originally an utter- one delight is to visit the sanctuary where he renews that sense
ance of Yahws, and that it has been transformed to make it of the divine favour which keeps hislinner heing in perfect peace.
suitable for the community. No doubt some passages of the He is confident that Yahwi: will not suffer his ‘loyal one’ to
psalm might be applied to Yahw?. No doubt too if a historical perish. Does the psalmist mean himself? No ; it is Israel who
king wrote the psalm, we might accuse him’of :elf-conscious- says that in heart mind and body it is jubilant. The glorious
ness. But the psalm is virtually a prophecy, and corresponds Messianic time (MessiAnic in the wider sense) is at hand.
to Is11 3-5. When it comes, life will be ’life indeed. The way to this life is
- i h n 3 * u 253 (v. 6) should probably be n h n n i 3 r n-xiyz,.
Duhm’s 2 $ p for ll$+ is far toa superficial to meet his object.
3 For ’Nil n2 (v. 11)and 11 n3 (v. 13) read n;?:n n?. The 1 For m’wN, mnlN read l p k , (v. I). Also
original tradition made Solomon’s chief wife a MiSrite; but the n;r&e hpx
m?I Din; ~ m ? (v. and n’nrx
2)) sp?m
tradition was presumably already corrupted in the time of the (v. Sa), and 313’ p.ep (v. 86). Verse 8a does not resume what
Psalmist.
pwiy ~31’1and m w ny l i ~ i ”are both corruptions of has gone hefore but adds a fresh detail. The worst offenders
against moralit; are in the land of Jerahmeel or Edom.
n?? ny Np?;. lwnw also covers over l*nw’. d, as elsewhere, Here, too, the Messianic king, who is the speaker, will put an
from &nnl*.
other emendations see Ps.W. .
should be ,115. nqi, i 1 ~ ~ n comes-p For the end to the wicked. Thus as the result of all this purification,
YahwYs land will have ndne but righteous people (Is. 6021~).
3355 3956
PSALMS (BOOK) PSALMS (BOOK)
known to YahwE, who will show it to his people, and fill Israel The pangs of death will affright them,
with joys which are past imagining. The terrors of She61 will take hold of them.
15 (But) surely my soul God will ransom,
10 My soul thou wilt not yield to the nether world,
Thy loyal one thou wilt not suffer to see the pit ; From the hand of She61 he will take me.*
I I Thou wilt make known to me the path of life, Stern and uncompromising is the refrain,-
Thou wilt satisfy me with joys in thy presence.1
IZ 20 Traitors will not come up from ShBal.
The prayer for protection in Ps. 17 follows upon an The impious are destroyed in Deathland.
earnest self-justification in vv. 2-5. T h e protection Thus the background of Ps. 49 is the same as that
which the speaker craves is guaranteed by the presence of so very many other psalms-the Jerahmeelite oppres-
of Yahwe in the sanctuary; while stands the temple, sion ; and the comfort proffered to Jewish sufferers is
pious Israel will stand. Yes ; here again there is that there will soon be an end of the oppressors in
nothing which according to a strictly critical exegesis ShE61.
points to a n individual. It is Israel who, perceiving iii. PsuZm 73.-Ps. 73 has the same historical back-
the imminent danger in which, humanly speaking, he ground as Ps.49. T h e Edomites are settled in the
stands, breaks out into a curse-a borrowed curse (see land, and their prosperity, which violates the orthodox
l l ~ ) - o n the enemy. For himself, however, h e ex- doctrine of retribution, tempts the Jews to apostasy.
presses the sure confidence of Messianic felicity. Israel It is not very likely a priori that such a psalm would
will behold Yahwe's face in unclouded brightness, and express, even as it were by a lightning-flash, the intuition
the temple will be richer in spiritual privileges than at of immortality.
present it can be.
1 j As for me, by [thy] righteousness I I shall behold thy face ;
As the traditional text stands it is natural to suppose this
I shall he satisfied with thy loving-kindness 1 in thy hahita-
mainly on account of m.15-17,'where the speaker apparentl;
tlOll.
distinguishes himself from the 'generation ' of YahwP's 'sons'-
i.e., the pious community-and also refers to a visit which he
ii. Psalm 49.-Ps. 49 too, has nothing to d o with paid, during his mental struggle, to the sanctuary of God. If
the individual, according to a critical exegesis. It deals the speaker in the psalm is an individual-as this passage
with a problem very familiar to Jewish sages-viz., the appears to imply -must we not suppose that in ZRI. z5f: he
expresses the assdrance of the perpe:ual duration of his blissful
right attitude of the pious in view of the prosperity of communion with God? Verses 15-17 however are not altogether
the wicked. correctly read, and the order of thk lines his been disturbed.
The answer, Wellhausen supposes, is that 'death makes all The psalm consists of fourteen quatrains ; nos. 8 g and IO should
equal, and strikes !he man who has much to lose harder than be composed of vu. 16 and 21 ; w. 15 and 2%; and vu. 17 and 18.
him who has little. The correctness of this may, however, be When we examine the text closely, we find that the 9th and loth
doubted, and even Wellhausen holds that v. I j [r61 supplements quatrains need emendation. The whole passage should probably
the negative consolation that death closes the happiness of the run thus,--2
ungodly by the positive comfort that God may deliver the godly 16 And when I sought to comprehend this,
from sudden death ('Psalms,' SBOT 185). Duhm how- Too painful seemed it unto me ;
ever, is of opinion that the psalmist holds a doctrine 6f the 21 For my heart was astonished,
immortality of the pious, which must, he thinks, have been con. And in my reins I was horror-stricken.
nected with well-defined ideas as to the place to which a goad
man wa5 'taken' after death. (So also UPS. 3824068; cp
ESCHATOLOGY,31, col. 1346.) Obviously this interpretation
15 I myself rejected wisdom, .
Thy loving-kindness and faithfulness I denied ;
has a hearing on the question of the date of the psalm ; in fact, 22 I became a dullard, I was ignorant,
Duhm includes Ps. 49 (like Ps. 73) among his Pharisee psalm. I lacked discernment concerning thee ;
So much at least is undeniable, that for a certain class *
of persons, according to the psalmist, death has a penal 1 7 Until I gave heed to the judgments of God,
And discerned the future of those men :
character. But can we stop short here? Is it likely 18 H o w (suddenly) calamities overtake them !
that the psalmist, who wrote not for a remote age but Thou castest upon them gloom (of Deathland).
for his own generation, only referred vaguely to the A section of the Jewish community (including, it
persons punished by death as the rich and the wicked? would seem, many of the leading members) had, in-
Certainly not. W e have to seek for underlying refer- wardly at any rate, ' denied God,' even if some of them
ences to historical people, and if we seek these aright, did not actually join the aassembly of the impious'
we shall find them ; for Jewish editors were not arbitrary mentioned in Ps. 50 (v.18, emended text). Looking
forgers-they did but put the best interpretation they back upon this. they saw how foolish they had been,
could on inaccurately transmitted passages, and they a n d recognised that they had missed the only possible
have left us the means of correcting their errors. T h e explanation of the facts, viz. that when God's time (the
only passage in Ps. 49 which we can safely assign to the Messianic judgment) has come, the wicked will be
editor is vv. 3 and 4 [4 and 51. T h e remainder is really suddenly swept away like grass (cp 927 181). Pious
a n attack on the Jerahmeelites or Edomites, who would Israel recovered its balance, and the joyous conscious-
seem to have settled amongst the Jews, to have amassed ness of the divine Companion returned t o it. No in-
great wealth, not always by legitimate means, and to ward temptation nor outward misfortune can cause him
have denied the moral government of God (IO4 I I 13 to stumble. He longs for Yahwe-the peerless God-
14 I , etc.). T h e first stanza should probably run to reveal himself by some mighty deed as Israel's eternal
thus,- p0rtion.j No more will h e give way to doubt ; the
I Hear this, all ye Edomites,
Attend, all ye Jerahmeelites, denial of Yahwh leads to ruin.
2 Both traitors aud deniers, Our conclusion is that there are no immortality psalms
The wicked and the impious together.
And the three most disputedverses (13-15[14-16]) should 1 The emendations which, the present writer holds are forced
probably run thus,- upon us are too many to he all given here (see Ps.d). A few,
however, may he mentioned. In 1. I read 3133 'wnJD p ~ - n l ;
13 This is the fate of those that deny God, in 1. 2, $n.rsq 3Binn n,.rnNi. The refrain is-
The latter end of those that insult Israel.
14 For ever they will be prostrate in the pit,
ihy: th iinwn m+
They will seek earnestly in the darkness for daybreak.
*
y?njp? +?!
a In ZZ, 5, 6 red-
1 That the speaker looks for an endless life is certain (cp
np?p -npECp '?$
21 5 [41 61 8 (71). R u t nx] (EV, 'for evermore ') has passed out . : -. q p !
'Ulfl3
of the revised text. All the stanzas of Ps. 16 have four lines In 1. 8 read, with Gratz, ?pY 'i?lDp ni3q. In 1. g, 7'?PE('lp
except (at first sight) the fifth. The four preceding lines all
have a verb ; the fifth has none. This is the more remarkable cis:!
5~ p g w p - 5 r ; in Z. 10, ninjr DT~!.
as the adverb nr>[51follows The truth is that, for 7 1 7 ~ 3 1ninyj 3 Verse 26 has received some accretions. It should probably
nyj we should read Tni>jvnlion. This is also the true close run thus,
of Ps. 17. By accident, it w a s copied into Ps. 16 from thecolumn My flesh and my heart pine for him :
in which Ps 17 was written. See Ps.F). Yahwe is my Rock and my Portion for ever.
3957 3958
PSALMS (BOOK) PSALMS (BOOK)
for the individual, only for the community, and that the divine sake of individual life, for the sake of the love and
36. Result. pS. 73 is not only a psalm of faith in truth that is in each heart and is not cumulative-cannot he in
immortality, but also a psalm of doubt of two as one result”’ (#Px.’265J).
God’s fundamental attributes-a doubt from which the It must, however, be remembered that not only d o
community emerged with a full spiritual assurance based books iv. and v. contain ‘ 1’-psalms, but a later un-
on the more deeply realised doctrine of the imminent canonical Psalter (that ‘of Solomon’; 5s 4 1 J ) has a
Messianic judgment. As a psalm of doubt, Ps. 73 has number of psalms of the personified community. Indi-
its parallels in Pss. 39a, 9 4 4 and 116 ; but we must not vidualism needed for its development a new and unique
here enter on the consideration of these much misunder- impulse; not yet could the floods of personal feeling
stood poems. W e may, however, state the conclusion, and emotion break through the dams, and transform
forced upon us by our new textual criticism, that the the whole aspect of poetry.
view of Rudinger, Olshausen, Hitzig, Frankel (Ein3u.u With regard to the chronology of the Psalms, it is
der Palastin. Exegese auf die Alexandrin. Hevrneneldik, not much that we can say, taking our stand on a
1851, p. 233). that at any rate Ps.73 indicates 38. carefully revised text. It is, however,
contact with Hellenism, is incorrect. The problem of reasonable to hold that the groups or
before the psalmist in this and in the parallel psalms collections of Dsalms-Pss.
~ . __
!XI-1--- - qI.q
nii P
is the prosperity of the wicked rich who had flocked 107-129 Pss. 135-145, and Psi. 146-150-in which the
into Palestine from the neighbouring regions, and who psalms only occasionally bear titles, contain many works
ground down the poor and faithful Jews. of the Greek period. Among the possible or probable
From what has been said, it will be plain that a representatives of an earlier age are Ps. 90 at any rate,
historical sketch of the different nhases of thoupht in for the first part of this psalm (90a) can hardly be
o-----
the Psalter wonid be extremely diffi- separated from Ps. 896, both being, from the same
3,. causes, in the same despondent tone and both ( a s
Ideas o
varied.
f cult to make. T h e religious ideas of
the Psalter are no less varied rhnn criticism shows) Ezrahite psalms ; also Ps. 94, which
those of the community, nor could we be so rash as to interrupts the ‘ new song ’ of praise, and goes with the
attempt to describe them at the close of a critical article. kindred 73rd psalm ; also 137, as one of the chief of
From what has been said already (see 5 2 ) it must be the anti-Edomite psalms, and the group called nr$t.En ~ , u ,
plain that we have in the Psalter no merely local pro- or rather n~’&, ‘ of Salmah,’ but best known to English
duct. The Psalter is, at least in theory, catholic and readers as ‘Songs of degrees,’ which may have been
ecumenical; meant for synagogues as well as for the originally enclosed by Hallelujah groups ( L e . , before
temple; for the whole empire of Yahwh as well as for the 1 1 9 was inserted). Pss. 113-118, called the a Egyptian
central Judaean province. That its ideas should be all Hallel,‘ a group which seems filled by the hope of a new
equally noble, was not to be expected. It is probable, and great event comparable to the Exodus (cp Is.
however, that the nett gains from a more thorough 1 0 2 4 z6)-such a hope as the conquests of Alexander
criticism of the text of the psalms would be much in may well have fanned into a flame-and Ps. 146.150,
excess of the losses, and that the average religious cleverly called by Nachman Krochmal ‘ the Greek
standard of the psalmists would prove to be as much Hall&’ must surely be allotted to the Greek age. Not,
above that which it is commonly supposed to be as the however, to the Maccabzan age. As we have seen,
character of their Hebrew style. T h e imprecatory even 1496 has its parallels in psalms which we have no
psalms, in particular, would be seen to be less shocking reason for bringing down to the time of the Maccabees.
throughout than they appear to be in the traditional W e mnst be careful not to exclude, on grounds of
text (see Che. The Christian Use of the Psalms, principle, from the psalms of the Greek age all those
1899). This, if correct, is of no slight importance, for which have a real or assumed Jerahmeelite or Edomite
it is a heavy drawback to the religion of the psalmists background. It was of course not till the time of John
that fervent love of God should be accompanied with Hyrcanus that the so-called I d u m z a became a Jewish
such intemperate expressions of hostility to ‘the wicked.’ province, and we could well understand that even at a
While these psalms stand in their present form, it is later time ‘Edomite’ might still be a synonym for
difficult indeed to respect the Psalter as much as we ‘oppressor.’ Beyond this, it is not safe to go. T h e
should like, and we can hardly wonder that such a text binds us-not indeed the Massoreticor the Septua-
candid writer as Duhm should express such strong gint text, but that which underlies the tradition, and
repugnance to much that it contains. Only upon the which can to a considerable extent be recovered by
basis of a thoroughly revised text can we, properly methodical investigation. W e cannot, therefore, say
speaking, maintain that the Psalter is a record of the with Duhm that Pss. 74 79 8 3 and 110, being clearly
religious consciousness of the Jewish Church. (he thinks) MaccabEan, supply fixed points for the
T h e definition here given of the Psalter is in harmony with chronology of the Psalter, and the other psalms which
the result of the controversy as to the ‘ I ’-psalms (see 8 6). It this critic regards as revealing their date hardly less
is still more obviously in accordance with the fact that most of distinctly than these-e.g., the so-called royal psalms,
the psalms in hooks iv. and v. are congregational utterances. which he places in the first rank of evidence for the time
‘One might illustrate the combination of ‘‘ 1”- and “ W e “-psalms
h y parallels from the Greek choruses. But the phenomena of of Alexander JannEns-are, for us, equally devoid of
books iv. and v. are perhaps best explained thus. T h e Instinc- clear references to contemporary history.
tive personification of the church-people in the “ I ”-psalms was Nor can we attach any importance to the widely held
a survival-an inheritance from antiquity. I t was natural that
later religious poets should begin to look upon their nation in a theory that Pss. 96 1051-15, and 1061 47 48, and also
more modern light as a n organisation of individualities. They 1328-10, must have been known to the Chronicler’-a
did not indeed g o 50 far as those modern hymnists who have theory which, as generally expressed (see e.g., Strack,
half-filled the popiilar hymnals with lyrics of a strongly personal E i n l . i4)119), involves holding that the so-called fourth
tone. Rarely do the Hebrew psalmists disclose thcir personality.
T h e y had indeed their private joys and sorrows: hut they dld Book of the Psalms was already in existence in the
not make these the theme of song. T h e individual conscious- Chronicler’s time. This last thesis is not in itself
ness was not sufficiently developed for this. . . . But the later probable. The division between books iv. and v. is not
“ We“-psalms, though not less national than the others, indicate
a perception that, as Kingsley has said, ‘ I communities are for natural, and was probably not made till the final redac-
~ - - ~ _ _ _ tion of the Psalter, which cannot plausibly be said to
1 For the religious ideas of the Psalter, according t o the have occurred till after the Chronicler’s time. It is
newer criticism, see OF‘S. (r8gr), pp. 258-452; Smend, E d - also less probable that the dividing doxology in Ps.
g C S C k . ( l ) , 1893: (2), 1899. 10648 originally contained the words l p t o ~ ~ XN!, - $ ~
2 T h e word ‘church’ is used in the widel; se2?e, as b y Dean
Stanley in the phrase ‘the Jewish church. Community’ is ‘and let all the people say, Amen,’ than that these
less familiar to ns than the corresponding word Gemeinde is t o words were taken, with one slight and necessary altera-
Germans ; it is also somewhat too narrow a word for use in all
connections. 1 Cp Ehrt’s comparison of the texts, Abfassungszeit, 4 3 s
3959 3960
PSALMS (BOOK) PSALMS (BOOK)
tion, from I Ch. 1636, where we read, at the close of the to be several reminiscences of Ps. 147 in Ben Sira,
strange composite psalm, n@? rind.!, ' and all the which is a point of some critical interest. So much, as
people said, Amen.' This a t least is Wellhausen's view Noldeke remarks, is clear-that Ben Sira lived at the
(Bleek's EinZ.(') 506, n. I ), which, however, seems to time and in the circles in which a great part of the
need supplementing. It is probable ( I ) that the whole later psalms were written.
of the close of Ps. 106-viz., vv. 4 7 3 -is borrowed from The linguistic argnment, to which we have referred
I Ch. 1635f.l (beginning uywin n??Iand ending, %g? already (,~
~
5 9). has been treated with moderation bv
_ I

Kiinig. H e computes the number of


nin3 [rather $-h>g]), and ( 2 ) that both the close (w.' 40' Linguistic occurrences of '23~and ?INrespectively,
1-5) and the opening of Ps. 106 are accretions on the argument. of the relative w (onlv towards the end
main body of Ps. 106, which had been handed down in of the Psalter), and of n g ' muih: ' ' often ' (also chiefly
an incomplete form, and needed some such additions to
make it usable. As a consequence, we cannot commit a t end of Psalter), and the designation of ' myriad ' by
ourselves to the view that I Ch. 1634 is borrowed from m?l (37[6][?], 917)and ia?(ti818[17][?]). J. P. Peters'
1061 (which may well be later than the Chronicler). attempt to account for linguistic peculiarities in the
The formula was a conventional one, and occurs in ni$yn[al i * w by the influence of Babylonian environment,
1071 1181 1361. Nor can we venture to assert posi- assumes, rather too confidently, the accuracy of MT.
tively that it was the Chronicler who copied 96 1051-15 It is in fact the state of the text of the Psalter that
(see I Ch. 168-33) and 1328-10 (see z Ch. 6 4 1 3 ) . The makes it peculiarly difficult to form conclusions which
books of Chronicles, like other books, passed under the can command general assent. T h e present writer's
hands of redactors, and it is very possible that the inference from a revised text of the Psalms is much in
insertions from the Psalter referred to were made by one their favour. If the text of the Hebrew fragments of
ofthese.2 W e cannot, therefore, safely use theargument Ben Sira can be trusted, he would be unwilling to bring
which is often based on these insertions to determine many of the psalms very near the generally accepted
the date of a t least a few psalms. date of Ben Sira's Wisdom. Unfortunately, the correct-
That there are no pre-exilic psalms, nor ascertainable ness of many parts of the Hebrew text of Ben Sira, in
fragments of such psalms, is for us a t least quite certain. its present form, is liable to the greatest doubt, and the
And though there is the abstract possibility that psalms present writer would probably go even beyond Noldeke
were written in the lands of exile before the arrival of ( Z A T W 20 [ I ~ O O ]8 4 8 ) . in the extent to which he
Ezra and his band a t Jerusalem, the uniformity of the traces unbiblical words, idioms, and constructions to
historical background of the psalms of book i. does not deep-seated corruption of the text.
favour the hypothesis. In spite of Duhm. whose A singular argument is used by Duhm to confirm the
chronology of the psalms is opposed ( I ) to a thorough late date which he assigns to a gronp within the -
~~
group-
textual criticism, and ( 2 )to the literary phenomena of 41. Psalter of of what he calls Pharisee Psalms (viz.,
the fragments of the Hebrew Sirach, we must hold that 9-10 1 4 56 57a 58JI 64 82 92 94 140,
a t any rate books i.-iii. belong most probably (with the probably also 5 26 54 141). These
exceptions of the anonymous psalms 1 2 and 33, unless psalms, he says (Psalmen, ' Einl.' 2.). which' are prob-
d rightly prefixes to 33 TG Aauetd) to the Persian ably directed against Alexander Jannaeus and his
period, or to the Persian and the very beginning of the adherents, have a striking resemblance to most of the
Greek period. ' Psalms of Solomon. ' Elsewhere he expresses surprise
It would no doubt be helpful to make out the extent that the critics have not recognised how near chrono-
of the indebtedness of the Psalter to Is. 40-66, to logically the Davidic Psalter is to the Solomonic.
39. Phaseom Jeremiah, and to Job. Owing, however, Frankenberg t o o l has arrived a t a somewhat similar

A$$,,. ( I ) to the doubt which in an especial


degree hangs round the text of the Psalter
and of Job, and ( 2 ) to the composite
result ; only he assigns the Psalms of Solomon, together
with a (large?)group of canonical psalms, to the period
3f the Syrian persecution. T h e existence of points of
origin of all the three books mentioned, we cannot here :ontact may be granted ; but, as is shown elsewhere (see
lay much stress upon this. In a complete Introduction ESCHATOLOGY, 5s 64, 66). the eschatology of the
to the Book of Psalms a phraseological comparison of Psalter of Solomon differs from that of the canonical
the Psalter with. these hooks would have to be instituted ; psalms.a T o this we must add that, in our judgment,
but a critical revision of the text of all four books would Kosters is right (against Frankenberg) in denying that
of course be presupposed. That there is a small element ;here is any distinct reference in the Psalter of Solomon
of truth in Hitzig's theory of Jeremianic psalms can :o contemporary history. T h e psalms appealed to by
hardly be d o ~ b t e dand, ~ even in book i. of the Psalms Frankenberg as proving a MaccabEan date and by
it is impossible not to recognise some clear points of Wellhausen (cp MESSIAH, $j6) as proving a reference
contact with the Colloquies of Job. I t is also beyond o the capture of Jerusalem by Pompey in 63 B . c . ,
question that Pss. 9 3 and 96-100 are even strikingly -eally refer, according to Kosters, to the catastrophe of
parallel to Is. 40-66,4 and the amount of real parallelism ;86 n.c.
between psalms even in books i. -ii. and the Colloquies On this subject the present writer strongly holds with
of Job is not inconsiderable (cp Barth, Beitruge eur Kosters. He thinks that the references to the capture
Erklui*un$ des B. H i d , 1876). I t would also be im- of Jerusalem may be used in illustration
43. Their of Pss. 74 and 79, and even thinks it
portant in the Introduction here suggested to sift the background
comparisons of passages in the Psalter and in the and name. possible that the writer (?) of these psalnis
Hebrew text (so far as known) of Ben Sira given by continues the tradition of the Jerahmeelite
Schechter ( Wkiorn of Ben Sira, 13-25). There seem :aptivity.5 For want of the Hebrew text we cannot
1 Die Datirung der Psalmen Salonzos (1896).
1 This paseaqe consists of a current liturgical prayer a n d a 2 So too Kirkpatrick Psalnrs Introd. xxxviix
liturgical benediction and doxology (similar to those pllced by 3 De kisfon>&e ad&wond van de Psalmen van SaZoma
editors at the end of books i. ii. and iii.). Verslagen der Koninglijked Akad. van Wetemchappen 42), 1898.
2 Similarly Keuss, Stade, and Duhm (cp 4, n. 3). 4 Die Pkarisaer und die Sadduciier (Reilage), 18i4.
3 Campe ( D a s Yerhalfniss, etc., 19 24 27 31 33 3 9 decides 5 In Ps. Sol. 2 26[301, where thedeathofthe 'dragon'isrelated,
that Jer. 17 8 10 24 20 IO 23 12 SO 25 13 are the originals of Ps.1 3 rir TGY + l v AiyhTou may represent O'!rp .l?-sp 'on the
62 [I] 31 14 [13l 356 7 9 6 3 1357. Kdnig(Ein2. 397) pronounces
this insecure ; but he has perhaps not a good eye for phraseo- nountains of Misrim,'and fir rai Bdha'cr& sfipnl: y?K-$g
logical points of contact. Campe certainly errs on the side of on the land of Jerahmeel.' So too in v. 29 [33] 6 & . K ~ ~ P L O-pjr
P
moderation. Ps. 7 9 6 3 , however is an interpolation. [Cp @'s .aiBddmnp may be based on a faulty text, whici should have
insertion of Jer. 9 23f: ( 2 2 5 ) in I k.2 10.1 un, hmnl, Y ~ ]ilKH 'IN, and in 17 15 [IT] ;v fiiu? &iv ovp-
4 Similarly Driver Infr.(W 363 . cp Ehrt Abfassungszeit
(1869), 53-55 ; Gratz: MGWI 30 (iS81) I .&? f and Delitzsch's ~ K V W may be a misinterpretationof 22Y 't?y 'amidst the
commentary. Ieoples of Arabia.'
3961 3962
PSALMS (BOOK) PSALMS (BOOK)
finally prove the latter point ; but our experience with Ps.18. The words of Israel in the day that Yahwh delivers
the canonical psalms justifies us in regarding it as a t him from tke-hand of all the Arabhs and from Ishmael.
Ps. 30. A Sabbath (?)sup lication.1
least not improbable. Highly imitative the Psalms of Ps. 34. When the hosts o f those of Jerahmeel and of Geshur
Solomon certainly are, and among the signs of this fled.%
imitativeness we may probably reckon the heading of Ps. 51. For the Sabbath 0).
each of the psalms $aXpbs T$ uahwpwv-ie.. iin1D Ps. 52. Against the house of Jerahmeel.
Ps. 54. [Concerning] the Zarephathites.
nnb$-which, consistently with our explanation of iinro Ps. 56. At beholding (?) the Zarephathites.
and of n&w$ nisyn:, T W (Ps. 127), we may explain Ps.57. When the sons of Ishmael and the Arabians drew
‘ Marked : of [the sons ofl Salmah ’ (see 5 21). In other near.
Ps. 59. Concerning the Ishmaelites and the house of Jerah-
words, though the old clan-names of the temple-singers meel.
had gone out of use, the collector of these Pharisee Psalms Ps. 60. At the oppression (of Israel) by ham-jerahmeel and
(as Ryle and James fitly call them) adopted one of these Aram-missur.
Ps. 63. At the goings-up to the house of Yahwk.
names as a prefix to the collection and to the psalms Ps. 142. When ...
among the Arahians.3
within it. Cornill‘s remark ( E i d zg5), ‘ H o w they Ps. 143. When the sons of Jerahmeel pursued. (Based on1 e.)
came to the designation Psalms of Solomon” is quite P s 144. Concerning the captivity. (Based on e.)
inexplicable,’ is, we may venture to hope, too de- If the truth has not always been reached, the theory
spondent. that Jerahmeelite oppression is the real or assumed
Thus the Psalms of David, the Lamentations, and background of very many of the psalms has been con-
possibly the Psalms of Solomon agree - in their assumed firmed. Neither the authors nor the editors of the
43. Imitative historical background, though the want psalms and the psalm-titles deserved the disparaging
of originality in the text of the third of epithets often of late years applied to them.
psalms. these collections forbids us to speak a s The study of the psalm-titles in the versions stands
enthusiastically of it as of the two former books. It is aside from our present subject. It need only be said
true, the Lamentations as well as many of the canonical
psalms are imitative; so too the psalms assigned by 46.
that if the explanations of iiis and
n&& given in 5 26 are correct, the
redactors to Hannah and Jonah respectively ( I S. 2 1-10 invemion~. ascription of certain psalms in 6 to
Jon. 22-9) are imitative, nor is there much originality in Jeremiah, or to Haggai and Zechariah,. would seem to
the psalms assigned to Hezekiah (Is. 3810-20) and be discredited, as belonging to a time when i?n! and
Habakkuk (Hab. 3 ; see H ABAKKUK , $9). But amidst nbsvs (explained as giving authors‘ names) were already
these imitative compositions there are at least some,
which, if not absolutely original, nevertheless shine out found in the titles.
by a true lyric beauty. See Staerk, ‘Zur Kritik der Psalmeniiherschriften,’ Zd T W
12 [1892] 91-161; B. Jacob. Z A T W 16 118961 155.~66;
No doubt many psalms not only of pre-exilic but also Baethgen Unfersuch. iider die Psahzen nach der Peschita,
of Dost-exilic date have been lost. W e could wish that Kiel, 1878 (unfinished); J P T , 1862, pp. 405 5 , 4 9 3 8 ; ‘ Der
44. psalm- gleanings had reached us, as in the case Psalmencornyentar des Theodor von Mopsuestia in syriscber
Bearheitung, Z A TIV 5 [1885] 53-101 ; Siebenzehn makka-
composition. of the proverbs. At any rate, we have baische Psalmen nach Theod. von Mops.’, 3.6 118861 261-188
late soeciniens of Dsalm-comoosition in the 7 [1887] 1-60. Baethgen’s communications from the Syriac
Wisdom of Ben Sir; (Ecclus. 361-17 5022-& 51 1-12 51 12 recast of Theodore’s exegesis are very interesting. I t is to
( I ) 51 13-29 ; see Hebrew text), in the Greek Daniel, in Theodore that Theodoret alludes in the words, r& iacypm$dpsGv
+a+& rwcs &srbhrmv (Pr.pf:a d Psalnlos). He does not
Judith and Tobit, in the Assumption of Moses (101-10; however, reject the Davidic origin of the psalms, but only thd
see Charles), and even in the N T (see HYMNS). Indeed, reference of certain psalms to events in the life of David. David
since prophetic inspiration still appears to have existed often spoke, Theodore believes, prophetically, and assumed the
in NT times, we can hardly wonder that psalms as well character of men yet unborn. This will not satisfy the Bishop
of Cyrus: rohpqpbv dpab xai hiav Bpauir +FV&~F rairap
a s prophecies are mentioned as characteristic of early aposayopev‘crv. The influence of Theodore, through the book
Christianity (cp I Cor. 1426). Long indeed is the called Exegesis, on early English theology has been well shown
history of the development of the psalm from the rude by Prof. J. D. Bruce of Bryn Mawr College, Pennsylvania (see
cries of the primitive Arabian worshipper on a visit to
‘ Literature ’).
the sanctuary (see Wellh. Heid.(’) 107, (9I I O ; WRS, Poetical form, obviously, cannot be treated in a
RSP) 340, n. z ) to the carefully elaborated songs of the small compass. The subject is of great importance.
temple and perhaps too of the synagogue service. 47. Poetical As Briggs well says,4 the study of the
Inconclusion wegive, conjecturallybut notwithout good form. measurement of the line, and the
grounds, restorations of the historical references in the strophical arrangement of the psalms,
original titles of some of the canonical combined with the study of their grouping, throws
46. Historical fresh light upon the Psalter. The most necessary
reff. in psalm- psalms. It will be remembered that
again and again, in articles dealing preliminary information is given under P OETICAL
titles. with OT narratives and prophecies it L ITERATURE, $5 8, 9, where, too, the appended biblio-
has been maintained that these have been altered graphy gives adequate references to the current literature.
from earlier narratives and prophecies, partly misread, A metrical arrangement of the psalms ought to go on
partly misinterpreted, so that they present historical pari passu with textual revision. Unfortunately a
and geographical statements widely differing from those thorough textual criticism is still a desideratum, though
originally conveyed. These transformed passages are a thankworthy beginning has been made by Gratz,
analogous to the transformed psalm-titles. If by Lagarde, Duhm, and others. Whether SELAH Cg.v.1
taking this course we help to rehabilitate the authors or has any relation to the divisions of psalms, is still a
supplementers of the titles, this can hardly be reckoned moot point. Refrains are clearly marked in Pss. 42-43
to our discredit. Such hard words have been used by 46 49 ; less certainly in Ps. 107 (n. 6 destroys the
critics (cp 11) respecting the unintelligence and in-
1 n;33 n ) q.. (what does this mean?) should probably be
capacity for clear thinking of the unfortunate editors of
the psalms that a plausible critical defence of them may n?@g.!!!n
appeal to those who can put aside prejudice, and look 3 It has actually been thought that the historical assignment
of this psalm in the present title was suggested by the occur-
at f x t s with a single eye. W e omit the portions of rence of n p in II.9 (81, and that the scribe or editor substituted
the titles relative to the collections to which the psalms ‘ Abimelech ’ for ‘ Acbish ’ by a slip. Delitzsch and Kirkpatrick,
severally belong (on which see J 25J), and refer for however, find it hard to suppose such a slip of memory. In
details to E’s.(*) reality +aqN comes from $xDm*.
3 It has been strangely supposed (Hnpfeld, Dnhm) that the
Ps. 3. At the aooroach of the sons of Arabia and the sons of
L .
title in MT and B was suggested by l!Dp, ‘confinement,’ in v.
Ishmael.
Ps. 7. With reference to the Arabians, the Cushites, the 8 91.
Jerabmeelites. Pres6yfmhn Review, Oct. 1888, p. 661.
3963 3964
PSALMS (BOOK) PSALMS (BOOK)
connection). V a r i o u s f o r m s of a l p h a b e t i c structure the scholarsof the periodad the revival of Hebrew studies about
the time of the‘Reformation were mainly dependent on the
a p p e a r in seven psalms (9-10 25 34 3 i 111 119 145). ancient versionsand on the Jewish scholars of the Middle Ages.
Originally no doubt Ps. 9-10 was a perfect alphabetic poem. I n the latter class Kimhi stands pre-eminent ; to the editions of
A later editor, however, broke it into two parts which became his commentary on the Psalms must now he added the admirable
independent psalms through the insertion of what now forms edition of Dr. Schiller-Szinessy (Cambridge, 1883). containing
9 zo[r9lf: Theonlyfairlyconnected portionofthe original psalm unfortunately only the tirst book of his longer commentary.
which we can with probability indicate, is 02,. 1 - 1 2 L2-131. I n Among the works of older Christian scholars since the revival of
Ps. 25 34 145 (cp Prov. 31 Lam. 4), eaLh letter begins a couplet ; letters, the commentary of Calvin (1~7)-fnll of religious insight
hut in psalms 25 and 34 the J couplet is wanting, and there and sound thought- and the laborious work of M. Geier (1668,
is a supernumerary 5 couplet. I n Ps.37, each letter begins a 1681 et srUpius) may still he consulted with advantage ; hut for
stanza of four lines, and in Ps. 119 each line a stanza of eight most purposes Kosenmiiller’s Schofia in Pss. (PI, 1821-22) super-
lines. For parallel compositions, see ECCLESIAST~CUS (0 16) ; sedes the necessity of frequent reference to the predecessors of
L AMENTATIONS (I I ) ; N A H U M (B 6). W e have no means of that industrious compiler.
ascertaining whether this artificial form of poetry was used in Of more recent works the freshest and most indispensable a r e
pre-exilic times. T h e supposed acrostic in Ps. 110 is precarious Ewald’s in the first two half-volumes of his Dichtrr des alien
(see 0 14a). C p KBnig, Einl. 3 9 , n. I ; Driver, 1nfrod.IV Aundes (Iy, Gijttingen, 1866 ; ET 188o), and Olshausen‘s (1853).
367f: T. K . C . T o these may he added (excluding general commentaries on
i. T h e oldest version, the LXX, follows a t e x t the 01)the two acute hut wayward commentaries of Hitzig
g e n e r a l l y closely c o r r e s p o n d i n g to the M a s s o r e t i c (1836, 1863-65) that of Delitzach (1859-60, then in shorter form
in several ediiions since 1867 [W]; E T , h Eaton, from 4th
48.
H e b r e w , the m a i n variations b e i n g i n the Germ. ed., 1887-89) and that of Hupfeld
2 vols. ; is), by Nowack, 1888).
(d,by Kiehm, 1867,
titles and i n the‘addition ( l a c k i n g in s o m e T h e last-named work, though
vereions.’ MSS) o f a n apocryphal p s a l m a s c r i b e d to lacking in original power and clearness of judgment, isextremely
convenient and useful, and has had a n influence perhaps dis-
D a v i d w h e n he f o u g h t w i t h Goliath. Pss. 9 and 10 a r e proportionate to its real exegetical merits.
rightly t a k e n as o n e p s a l m , b u t conversely Ps. 147 i s ii. T h e question of the text was first properly raised by Ols-
d i v i d e d i n t o two. hausen, and has since received special attention from V. Ortenherg
The L X X text has many ‘ d a u g h t e r s , ’ of which m a y ( Z u r Texfkn2ik der Psalmen, 1861), Lagarde (C’roph. Chald.,
1872. arid Psalterium Hieronymi, 164J) ; Bruston (Du 7’exte
be noticed ( a ) the M e m p h i t i c (ed. Lagarde, 1875). see fin.mitifdes Psaunzcs, 1873); Dyserinck, in the ‘scholia’ to his
also iv. below ; (6) t h e old L a t i n , which as revised by Dutch translation of the Psalms, Zleol. Tzjdschr., 1878, pp.
J e r o m e i n 383 a f t e r the c u r r e n t G r e e k t e x t f o r m s the 2 7 9 8 ; [H. Gratz, 1882.831, and Bickell (Cannina V T nrrtnce
etc.. Innshruck. 1882). whose critical services are not to b;
Psalterium Rumanurn, l o n g read in the R o m a n Church judged merely ’by the measure of assent which his metrical
a n d still u s e d i n S t . P e t e r ’ s ; (c) various A r a b i c versions, theories may command [cp P OETICAL L ITERATURE , end]. I n
i n c l u d i n g t h a t p r i n t e d i n t h e polyglots o f Le Jay and English we have among others, the useful work of Perowne
W a l t o n , a n d t w o o t h e r s of the f o u r exhibited t o g e t h e r i n (PI 1890) that of L o w e and Jennings (0 1884-5) and thevaluahle
t r a h a t i d n of Cheyne (1884, and with &m., i888).
Lagarde’s Psalterium, 206, Pruver6ia, A r a b i c e , 1876 ; The mass of literature on the Psalms is so enormous that no
on the relations and history o f these versions, see G. full list even of recent commentaries can he here attempted,
H o f f m a n n , in fenaer Literaturz., 1876, art. 539 ; the much less a n enumeration of treatises on individual psalms and
special critical questions. For the latter Kuenen’s Onderzoek,
f o u r t h o f L a g a r d e ’ s versions i s f r o m t h e Peshitta. The vol. 3, is, u p t o Its date (1865), the most complete, and the new
H e x a p l a r text o f the L X X , as r e d u c e d by O r i g e n i n t o edition now in preparation will doubtless prove the standard
g r e a t e r conformity with the Hebrew by t h e aid o f subse- work of reference. [The new edition was interrupted by the
q u e n t G r e e k versions,2 was f u r t h e r t h e m o t h e r of ( d ) t h e author’s lamented death ; Part 3 (r), edited by Matthes, closes
with Proverbs, hut does not include Psalms.] As regards the
Psalterium GaNicanum,-that is, Jerome’s second re- dates and historical interpretation of the psalms, all older dis-
vision o f t h e P s a l t e r (385) b y the a i d o f t h e H e x a p l a r cussions. even those of Ewald. are in meat measure antiauated
t e x t ; this edition b e c a m e c u r r e n t in G a u l and ultimately b y recent progress in Pentateuch c r i t i c h and the history‘of the
canon, and a n entirely fresh treatment of the Psalter by a sober
w a s t a k e n i n t o t h e V u l g a t e o f ( e ) the S y r o - H e x a p l a r critical commentator IS urgently needed. W. R. S.
version (published by Bugati, 1820. and i n facsimile iii. Tramrlafionswith or without notes; Ch. Bruston, 1865 ;
f r o m t h e fanious A m b r o s i a n M S by Ceriani, M i l a n , W. K a y PJ 7874. E. Reuss, 1875 (French), 1893 (German);
1874). Dyseringk, /877 (6utch); D e Witt, 1894 (New York), and (new
translation) 18qr; E. Kautzsch, 1891; G. Bickell, Die Dichtunfen
ii. T h e Christian A r a m a i c version or PeshittH is der Hebriier (3, der Psalter), 188i,-from a revised and metrically
l a r g e l y influenced by @ ; c o m p a r e B a e t h g e n , Unter- arranged text. [Fr. W. Schultz, in K G K , ,888; edited by H.
suchungen (see § 25). T h i s version has peculiar psalm- Kessler, ~ 8 9 9; Fr. Raethgen, 1892 ; (21, 1897 ; Kirkpatrick (in
titles t a k e n f r o m E u s e b i u s a n d T h e o d o r e o f M o p s u e s t i a Camtr. Rible), vol. i., r89r ; vol. ii., 1895 ; vol. iii., r p r ; B. Duhm,
1899. S. Minocchi (Italian), 1895 ; E. G . King, pt. i., 1898; J.
(see Nestle. i n T L Z , 1 8 7 6 , p. 283). Wellhausen, ET by Furness, J. Taylor, and Paterson, in SBOT‘,
iii. The Jewish A r a m a i c version or T a r g u m is 1898 ; S . K. Driver, The ParallelPsalter, b&g the Prayerhook
probably a l a t e work. The m o s t convenient edition i s Version of the Psalms and a New Version ... with an Intro-
duction and Glossaria ( I 898).
i n L a g a r d e , H q i q . r n p h n Chaldaice, 1873. iv. Articlesand;,zono~apaplis.-(See the introductionsofDriver,
iv. ’The best of a l l t h e o l d versions is t h a t m a d e by KBnig, Cornill, Baudissin, and the O T Theologies of Schultz
J e r o m e a f t e r t h e H e b r e w i n 405. I t did n o t , however, Smend. etc.) Delitzsch, Synrbolae ad psalnros iiiustrendo;
o b t a i n ecclesiastical currency- the old versions h o l d i n g isagocicae (1846); Ehrt, Abfasungszeit u. Abschiuss des
Psaitevs ZUY Pr@%ng der Fvage nach MakkabZerpsaZmen
their g r o u n d , j u s t as Anglicans still read the p s a l m s i n 1869; I. Miihlmann, Zur Frage der makbah. Psaimen, 1891
the version o f t h e “ Great Bible ” p r i n t e d i n t h e P r a y e r H. Gpaetz, ‘Die Tempelpsalmen,’ MGW/ 27 [r878j 2 1 7 8 i
Book. J e r o m e ’ s ( i m p o r t a n t ) version was first published Biichler, ‘ Zur Gesch. der Tempelmusik u. der Tempelpsalmen,
Z A T W 19 [1899] 9 6 8 ; Lagarde Um2ntalia 2 [8880] 13-27’
i n a good t e x t by L a g a r d e , Psalferium iuxta Hehreos Baethgen’s articles on the old &ions, f P T io, 1882 and oi
Nierunymi, Leipsic, 1874. Theodoreof hfopsuest,ia, Z A T W f o r 1885, 1886, 1887 (&e $$ 46,
[Baethgen’s articles, ’ Der textkrit. W e r t der a l t e n 48); F . Giesehrecht, Ueber die Ahfassungszeit der Psalters ’
Ueberss. z. d. Ps.’ i n /PI“.1 8 8 2 , s h o u l d b y all m e a n s Z A T W 1 118811276-332 (see col. 3928, n. 2 ) ; hI. Kopktein, DL
Asaph~salmenunfersucht (188,); John Forbes, Stirdies in the
be consulted. On E. W. B u d g e , The Earliest Known Book ojPsalms, 1888; Kessler, Die asaphitische Psalinengm##e
Coptic PsaZtetev ( 1 8 9 8 ) , see B r i g h t m a n , fuurn. of Theul. untersucht, 1889 (as to Maccahzan pss.); T. K. Ahbott ‘ T h e
Studies, 2z75f: S e e , further, ‘ Bibliography,’ ii. (§ 49). alphabetical arrangement of Pss. 9 and 10 ’ etc Hevma)fhena
1889; ‘Critical notes,’ibid., 189r, pp. 6 5 d ’ ( s e e ’ f 2 6 4 0 8 5 ! ~ 1 o ~ t . - I
and T EXT A N D VERSIONS. ] etc.); C. G. Montefiore, ‘ T h e Mystic assages in the Psalms,
i. Exegetical Works.- While some works of patristic ]OR, .Ja?. 1889, pp. 1 4 3 8 ; R. Smend, ‘Ueb. das Ich der
writers are still of value for text criticism and for the history Psalmen, Z A T W 8 118881 49.147; G . Beer F. Coblenz H.
ofearly exegetical tradition, the treatment d e la Roy, D. Leimdiirfer, referred to ah0v.e) (0 6) ; Ad. Neu.
49. Bibliography. of the Psalms by ancient and medizval hauer, ‘ T h e Authorship and the Titles of the Psalms ’ etc.
Christian writers is as a whole such as to Studia Bibiica, 2 [ r 8 p l 1-58; W. Campe Das Verhhlfuid
throwlight on the ideasofthe commentatorsand theirtimes rather jeretrzias zu den Psalmex, 189, ; W R S , ‘ T i e Psalter,’ 0 T’]C(?
than on the sense of a text which most of them knew only through 1892, pp. 188-225 ; Isid. Loeb, La LittPraturedespauvresdan;
translations. For the Psalms, a s for the other hooks of the O T , /a Bible (1892); J. Koherle, Die Temjelsdnger iiir A T ,
1899 ; .I.K. Zenner, Die Chorgesinge im 8 . der Psalmen, 1896 ;
1 See, further, T EXT A N D VERSIONS. Che. OPs. (1891); ‘ T h e Rook of Psalms, its origin, and its
2 See Field, Onkeenis Hexapfa, where the fragments of these relation to Zoroastrianism,’ Semitic Studies in Memory of Alex.
versions are collected. T h a t of Symmachus is esteemed the Kohut, 1897, p I I I 119; AidstotheD~j~utSttidyofCriticism
best. x8gz ; The Ctkvtia; Use afthe Psalms, 1899 ; W. T. Davison:
3965 3966

You might also like