No precise rules can be given for the order in which the psalms are found. A certain broad out- line of chronological order is perhaps discernible ; sometimes psaln\s are grouped together which refer to the same subject-matter, e.rj. the psalms of the Theophany of which Ps 98 forms a centre. The same musical designation apiiears to have caused the grouping of the Masclnl psalms 42-45. 52-55, whilst those inscribed Mlchtam are found together in 56-60. Sometimes the occurrence of a word or phrase seems to link one psalm with another, and some writers, of whom Wordsworth, Forbes, and occasionally Delitzsch, may be named as examples, attach much significance to this. But it is un- desirable to build any elaborate theories upon the arrangement of lyrics the present collocation of which must have had a long hist orj'. Experience shows how gradual and irregul.-ir has been the arrangement of many modern hymn-books, in daj-s when much greater symmetry and more formal arrangement might be looked for than in the Psalter.
The dates of these several collections can he de- termined only in the most general way, and even so with a con.siderable measure of uncertainty. It is perhaps possible to fix a tenninux a quo and nd Quem, a superior and inferior limit, to mark the period within which the whole work must have tieen carried out. And first, for the superior limit.
The earliest collection is that of 'Davidic' psalms, numbered 1-41. If Ps 1 and 2 were in- cluded in the collection when it was first made, also 25 and 33, it is tolerably certain that this was not done till after — probably not long after — the return from Captivity. Ps 1 is almost certainly post-exilic. The language of 14' ' Oh that the salvation of Israel were come out of Zion,' does not necessarily imi)ly the Bab. Captivitj', and the ver.se may be a liturgical addition. Ps '25^, which forms an addition to an acrostic arrangement, breathes a similar prayer, and shows that the psalm in its present condition cannot bo very early. The subject of Ps 16 does not necessitate a post-exilic (late, but if a doctrine of immortality be implied in it, such a date is most prulnilili'. Some other psalms in this collection — notably 31 and 39— [>oint
148
PSALMS, BOOK OF
PSALMS, BOOK OF
at least to the period of the later monari^hy. The history of Temiilenmsic, moreover, so far as that is ascertainable from the documents before us, hardly seems to admit of the production of such a linished collection of Temple -songs before the Exile. The Chronicler must be understood as describing in 1 Ch 15 and 16 the institutions of his own time, of which David only laid the early foundations. That a guild of lemple-iiingers ex- isted before the capti\ity of Judah is probable enough, but the collection as a whole — compare the titles to Ps 24 and 28 in the LXX — implies a stage of advancement in Temple psalmody which can hardly have been reached till after the Return. This does not imply, of course, that no previous collection of sacred songs had ever been made. It is possible, though hardly probable, that in the time of Solomon some steps ha<l been taken in this direction. But we are dealing with the Psalter as it has come down to us, and ne should name the period shortly after the Exile as the earliest possible and the most probable date for the formation of the first collection of psalms. Tlie next may very well have taken place in the time of Nehemiah, and the work appears to have been very gradually accomplished during the succeeding centuries by stages which we cannot exactly trace, but some idea of which has been furnished above.
AVhat, then, is the inferior limit of date in the carrjnng out of this work ? Here a number of argiiments have to be examined, the investigation of which is in itself instructive, and the material thus furnished is sufficient to warrant tolerably definite conclusions.
a. Tlie bearin" of 1 Ch 16 upon the date of the Psalter. Tlie date of the Chronicler may be roughly taken as about B.C. 3uO. In ch. 16, in tlie course of an account of the bringing up of the ark to the city of David, the WTiter puts a psalm into the moutli of David as appropriate to such an occasion The psalra is not directly attributed to David as the tr. of v.' in AV would imply. The phraseology only emphasizes tlie fact tliat David took especial care concerning the giving of thanks : ' On that d.ay did David make it his chief work to give thanks unto the Lord by the hands of Asaph and his brethren.' A psalm follows, how- ever, wliich consists of 105'""* 96 and certain verses (1.47.48) fro,a pg iQg Apparently, therefore, the Chronicler had these psalms — possibly a collection containin" these psalms — before him when he wrote. V.'* seems distinctly to imply that the writer adapted the doxology to his purpose, chang- ing the imperfects into perfects, ' And all the people said Amen, and praised the Lord.' If this were the case, the conclusion is clear, that Ps 106 was written, perhaps Bk. iv. formed, soiuewliere in the 4th cent. B.C. Closer examination shows, however, that this is not quite so certain. Cheyne contends (Origin of Ps. p. 457) that vv.w-*>' were only liturgic.il formiihe, not composed solely for use in Ps 106, but freely attaclied to many psalms. It may be replied that the connexion between 1 Ch 16" and Ps HiQ*' as a whole appears too close to lie accidental, and we can hardly conceive that the psalmist adapted the phraseology of the Chronicler, though Kyle seems to favour this view (Canon of OT, p. 129). It is possible, as Clieyne suggests, that additions were made to the various books after the collections had been provisionally tdosed, and this pos-sibility must not be summarily ex- Dluded. It is possible, ar;ain, and for some reasons probable, that w.^-^ did not form part of the original text of 1 Ch 16. V.' joins verj- naturally to v.", whilst the words of the psalra do not lit in very appropriately with the phraseology of the seventh verse, when its meaning is rightly under- ttood. This suggestion, originally made by Reuss,