2. Some psalms ascribed to David are evidently late because of tlieir obvious borrowings from earlier psalms. These are tame in stylo, lacking the fresh vigour associated with the Davidic period, though often with a plaintive beauty of their own (cf. Ps 86).
3. The acrostic psalms 25. 34 and 37 cannot be David's. It is conceivable that this artificial style of composition came into use early, but it is not probable. Kno^\'n examples of it are late, and some other features in the acrostic psalms of the first book — e.g. the condition of the State, the exhortations to patience under oppression, as in Ps 37 — make so early a date impossible.
4. The mention of the temple in 5' 27'' etc. must be considered as an eWdenee of date. It has been contended (e.g. hy Delitzsch, Psalms, vol. i. pp. 160, 161) that '?:•" might be applied to the Davidic tabernacle ; but it is only by a certain straining of language that a word for ' palace ' could be applied to a tent, even though that tent were the dwelling- place of God. The phrase God's ' holy hill,' more- over, seems to imply tliat the sanctuary had been established upon Zion for some considerable time (see Driver, LOT' p. 375). The early use of these expressions might, liowever, perhaps be allowed, if aU other features of the psalms in question favoured a Da\"idic authorship. But this is not the case. The language which describes a period of oppression and fear (Ps 9'* etc. ) requires a good deal of adap- tation before it will fit David's position, and tlie same may be said of the descriptions of the kind of foes ajjainst which the psalmist had to contend. Traditional interpretation may have accustomed readers to think of David under persecution by Saul, or at the time of Absalom's rebellion, but close examination shows that much of the language is inapjiropriate in David's mouth. Often there is a superficial resemblance to the circumstances of David's life, combined with real incompatibility. See, e.g., Ps 20 and 21, which refer to the kin^, but could not have been written by king David in relation to himself ; Ps 55'-- '', which might seem to point to Ahithophel, but that so many phrases of the psalm (w.^-'-'^ and the pliraseology, care- fully considered, of '-"'■') are incompatible with David's jiosition. Many of the psalms ascribed to David are not the lan^age of a monarch at all, but the plaintive complaints of one who is crushed under a government which he has no power to modify, and from which he cannot escape. Isolated expressions such as are found in SI'*-'' maybe explained as liturgical additions to an originally Davidic psalm, while 6*" might conceivably be understood of David's time ; but some violence is required in each case. And puttin" together (1) the separate phrases which betray a later date, (2) the kind of trials to which the psalmist is exposed, (3) the condition of society exhibited, (4) tha maturity of theological thought often manifested,
PSALMS, BOOK OF
PSALilS, BOOK OF
151
it will be seen that a strong case is made out apiiinst at least a large number of the psalms atuibuteU in the titles ' to Da\-id.'
Is it to be said, then, that David wrote none of the psuliiis that have come down to tis ? Well- Imusen's dictum has often been quoted, that ' the question is not whether the Psalter contains post- exilic, but whether it contains any pre-exilic psalms,' and that question is by many answered in the negative. It will be safer to conduct the inquiry upon critical principles cautiously applied.
First, little or no reliance is to be placed on the titles as indicative of authorship. For it is not certain that tlie i')"}^ is to be understood of personal authorship (compare the title 'of the sons of Korah,' where the preposition is admittedly not the Lamed aiutoris). It is probable that a title originally given to one or two psalms in a book was after- wards athxed separately to all in a collection. And the arguments above alleged show that many of the titles must have been alhxed in a crude and super- ficial way. But the same cannot be said of the general reputation of David as a psalmist. Tliis must have rested upon a toler.ibly substantial basis. It has been said that David ^\ as noted only as a musician, not as a poet. The pas.sages 1 S 16'", 2 S 1" .S-" 6'^ and Am 6* are said not to imply more than this. But the Chronicler makes David to have been the founder of psalmody, see 1 Ch IS^-'", 2Ch 7«", and compare Ezr 3'", Neh 12*".
Further, it has already been seen that David was confes.sedly the aullior of the eleg>' of 2 S 1, and the 18th psalm is attributed to him'in 2 S 22. It is .said that the lirst of these poems is not of a religious character, hut that does not constitute a proof that the writer could not compose a reli- gious poem, and for literary purposes its evidence 13 valid. David was the writer of verses which, as literature, are parallel with the psalms, whilst early tradition asc^ribes to him the composition of psalms al.so. Taking, then, the 18tli psalm as a kind of test case, how stands the evidence ? (a) External Evidence. If the 22nd cli. forms an integral part of 2S, the testimony to Davidic authorship is early and strong. If — as tliere is reason to suppose — chs. 22 and 23 constitute a later addition to the book, their evidence is greatly weakened. It is not easy to determine whether the text as given in the psalm is earlier or later than that found in the liistory. Baethgen inclines to hold that the psalm gives the earlier form of text, but that the two have been handed down independently. On the other hand, it is much more probable that the brief historical introduction with which Ps 22 opens was taken from the history than vice versd. (yS) Internal Evidence. The contents of the psalm suit well the early monarchy, and can, in fact, with difliculty be applied to any other period. The vigour and freshness which characterize the style have convinced Kwald and many other critics of the Davidic authorsliip. Tlio only arguments on the other .side have been drawn from v.-'', which mii'ht verv well have come from David's pen, ana vv.*"-^, which do uMquestionably jioint the other way, though tliere is nothing in them ahsolutelj' incompatible with Davidic authorship. The theory adopted by Clieyno and others who support a much later date is that the writer, with marvellous ability and success, throws him- self hack into the life of the conquering hero of many centuries before, and the rioem was ' con- jccturally ascribed to the idealized David not long before the Exile.' This conclusion appears to spring from the assumed premiss that ' from the point of view of the history of art, not less than from tliat of the history of religion, the sn|iposition that we have Davidic [isalms presents insuperable dillicullies.' The conjunction of internal and