(6) The canonicity of the Hagiographa.—This is more difficult to trace, and more complicated. The very name reminds us that we are dealing with a heterogeneous collection, which could not, like the two other groups, be classed under a really descriptive name. It would be a great mistake to take it for granted that their canonicity began to be deliberately considered after the canonicity of these other groups had been completely recognized. In the case of Psalms and Proverbs this was almost certainly not the case.
_ Psalms.—The composition of the Psalter shows it to be evidently a compilation from several earlier collections differing very much in character and age. The order suggests that the Psalms were generally placed in the same relative position in the complete Psalter which they had already occupied in these earlier collections. Thus we find together the Psalms of ‘the sons of Korah’ 42 (+43)-49. 84. 85. 87. 88, the Psalms of Asaph 73- 83, ‘songs of degrees (? steps)’ 120-134, and other cases where similarity of titles or refrains connects consecutive Psalms, showing that such groups of Psalms were taken en bloc from collections entitled ‘The Psalm-book of Korah,’ ‘ The psalms, maschils,
OLD TESTAMENT CANON
and songs of Asaph,’ ‘The songs of degrees, etc. So far from critical were the compilers of the Psalter that they did not venture in certain cases to decide whether a poem was more correctly described as a psalm or a song (see titles of 75. 76,
etc.). Still more curious is the leaving of the note, ‘The prayers of David the son of Jesse are ended,’ after the Doxology which closes Ps 72, although, as the Psalter now stands, the precedin: Psalm is as a fact ascribed to Solomon, and sever: later Psalms are ascribed to David. The arrange- ment of Psalms ‘to David’ makes it likely that at least two independent earlier collections were originally so entitled. All this tends to show that there was a wide interval of time between the composition of the majority of the Psalms and their final compilation in one complete Psalter.
The character of the Psalms themselves is very various. Some are comparatively crude, both in conception and language, and with sometimes a corrupt text, and appear as though a wide interval lay between their composition and the litera tendencies of later Judaism, as, e.g., Ps 10?" 14, (ct. 53) 16, ete. There is a very fair probability that these at least are pre-exilic. Some bear a striking resemblance to Jeremiah, and have been frequently regarded as having been written either by him or writers of his school (esp. 31. 35. 69. 79). Many are of a personal character, as 4. 12. 13. 139, etc.; others were obviously composed for public worship, to which they have a distinct reference, as 95. 96. 98. 99. 100, ete. ete. Others, again, suggest that, originally personal, they have afterwards been adapted for liturgical use, as 69. 77. 102. This fade many to suspect that in some cases a national interpretation has been placed on Psalms origin- ally designed to express the writer’s own feelings eit experience. In some Psalms, as in Ps 118, the national interpretation of the Ist person is obvious, and, of course, original.
Unfortunately it is impossible to fix a date for the use of Psalmsin religious worship with absolute certainty. It appears almost certain that psalmody did not form a regular part of the temple worship before the Exile. The Bk. of Kings, at any rate, says nothing of it. In the face of this, the constant mention of psalm-singing ae the Chronicler, as at the Dedication of the temple, 2 Ch 5-8, is of no historical value for the time of which it treats. It is of a piece with the ascription to David of the founding of the singing guilds, 1 Ch 25. The value of the statements in Ezra and Nehemiah are more difficult to estimate. We certainly find singers mentioned, not only in the editorial introduction to the account of Ezra’s work (Ezr 77), but, what is far more important; in the letter of Artaxerxes himself (73). They are spoken of in a way which implies that they are part of a definitely organized system. But the question arises whether that system was actually at work in Jerusalem, or had been organized by Ezra and his school in Babylon. What is known of the Priestly Code in relation to the Hexateuch makes it extremely probable that a new and highly developed ritual had been so formulated. [Ὁ is also of some significance that in P only we find the ritual use of trumpets (Lv 23%, Nu 10”). On the other hand we do find, in the list preserved of those who came up from Babylon, the mention of 148 (128, Ezr) singers, ‘sons of Asaph’ (Neh 74, Ezr 2"). It is not eas to reconcile this statement with Neh 7%, Ezr 2®, where singing men and singing women are men- tioned apparently as among the slaves of the exiles. Is it that these were menials who had no connexion pat or that the guild itself was
what had been a menial office ?
with the sacred a creation out o
Singers are also mentioned by Nehemiah as having been appointed by himself, Neh 74. In his account
OLD TESTAMENT CANON
of the dedication of the wall, 12”’-*%, the singers and players of instruments take a very prominent part. It is said that they had esta nie ed them- selves in villages, etc., round Jerusalem, whence they were gathered by Nehemiah, 12*%-*°. The statement in v.“ that the singers had performed their office ‘in the days of David and Asaph,’ is made, not Le Nehemiah, but by the editor. The account of the music and psalmody in the service connected with the foundation of the temple in Ezr 3'" is also editorial, and is too much like the accounts of similar services given by the Chronicler (1 Ch 16, 2 Ch 5. 207-** ete.) to be free from suspicion. It is sufficiently evident that on all such occasions he read into the narra- tive the religious customs of his own day, which were then Tenaga to have originated with David. But, on the other hand, it must be borne in mind that in this case he was describing events much nearer to his own day, and some time must be allowed for such traditions to have grown up.