external evidence furnishes a fair, tliough not conclusive, case in favour of the Davidic author- ship of Ps 18, such as would reasonably be accejjted in the case of any similar document in classical literature, and it can be overruled only by con- siderations drawn from a general view of OT religion, such as cannot be discussed here.
It is obvious that a decision on the question of the 18th psalm will carry many others with it. If this psalm be not David's, probably none from his pen has come down to us ; if it be, the way is open to examine other psalms for which a similar claim is made, rejecting sucli as are condemned by internal evidence. Tlie only otlier psalm of whicli mention can be made here is the lloth. Older ex- positors, such as Delitzsch and Ewald, held it to be Davidic, or of the Davidic age, but the tendency of modem criticism is to assign to it a much later date. The terseness, vigour, and occasional ohscurit}' of its phraseology favour an early origin, and its occurrence in the fifth book of the Psalter, which tells in favour of a late date, is not absolutely inconsistent with an earlier. Decision upon the point is bound up with the exposition of V.'. If the opening words may be understood in the sense that the Messiah is objectively regarded as the psalmist's Lord, David may be regarded as the speaker. If, as many hold, this is impossible, the theocratic priest-king must be addressed by the psalmist as his lord, and the Messianic reference can only be indirect and typical, and Davidic author- ship is excluded. It hiis been attempted to support the first of these theories bj' the langu.-ige of 2 S 23^'' and the prophecj* recorded in 2 S 7, but these do not present a close parallel to the kind of Messianic reference proposed. An argument, conclusive to the minds of many, is drawn from our Lord's quota- tion of this psalm as recorded in the Synoptic Gospels. This quotation shows at least that the current Jewish opinion regarded the psalm as Messianic, but it does not exclude — (1) the sup- position that an arijume7itiim ad hominem was intended sufficient for the purpose which Christ had in view, or (2) the fact that the argument to be drawn from tlie psalm holds good, if for 'David' the general word ' psalmist' were substituted. A study of the whole use of OT made by Christ in His teaching shows that the (questions of date and authorship with which criticism is chiefly concerned were not before the mind of our Lord as He s]i()ke, nor was it His object to pronounce upon them.
In general, the conclusion reached upon the subject of Davidic psalms seems to be as follows. It cannot certainly be proved that David wrote any psalms ; the probability is tliat he wrote many ; it is not likely that all tliese were lost; some of those extant whicli are ascribed to him are appro- priate in bis lips ; e.xternal evidence ascribes the 18th psalm to David, and if it bo his, it is probable that others also should be attributed to him ; and in determining the number of tliese, internal eridence drawn from contents, style, allusions, etc., is the solo criterion. The judgment of critics proceeding upon these lines natur.illy varies considerably. Baethgcn, with some hesitation, admits 3 psalms as Davidic, Schultz 10, Ewald 17, Delitzsch 44, while Driver [LOT'^ 380) sums up by saying— 'A non liquet must bo our verdict ; it is possible that Ewald's list of Davidic psalms is too large, but it is not clear that none of the psalms contained in it are of David's composition.' The arguments above adduced would lead to the conclusion that from ten to twenty psalms— including 3. 4. 7. 8. 15. 18. 23. 24. 32, and perliaps 101 and 110 — mntj have come down ton* from David's pen, but that the number can hardly be greater and may bo still less. The OOtli psalm cannot have been written by Moses, nor the 72iid
i52
PSALMS, BOOK OF
PSALMS, BOOK OF
and 12Ttli by Solomon. The titles in these cases nnist be understood as indicative of the subject- matter. Tlie reference of certain psalms to Asaph, Heman, Ethan, and the sons of Korah, is to be understood from the point of view of compilation rather than of authorship. If these psalms were taken from collections associated with the Levitical guilds kno^vn by these historical names in the time of the second temple, the titles become easily intelligible. It creates difficulties to press the meaning of the preposition as Lamed auctoris, and to suppose (e.g.) that the famUy or guild of ' Korah ' were either separately or conjointly authors of psalms. It is quite possible that the free multiplication of the title Ti'i^ is due to the same habit on the part of those who formed the several collections. Compilers would think more of the source from which the psalms were actually derived than of the presumably remote original author, especially in days when personal authorship was not dwelt upon as in a later time.
On the general subject of the age of the Psalms, Cheyne hardly allows one to be preexilic ; the scattered references to monarchy he applies for the most part to the time of the Maccabosan revival. In this he stands almost alone amongst Englisli critics, though the general tendency of criticism is to assign a continually increasing majority of the psalms to the post-exilic period. Cornill probably represents the prevailing opinion of contemporary scholars when he describes (Einleitunrj, p. 221) the Psalter as representing a reaction of the old Israelitish pious feeling against the stiffening formalism of the time of Ezra and his successors, a proof that the religious genius of Israel in the 3rd and 4th centuries B.C. had not been quenched by the growing influence rf what was later known as Pharisaism. The historical allusions which are found in some psalms are not for the most part decisive, and these cease to have any weiglit if the possibility of later impersonation and idealization is freely conceded. Taking the language of the p-salms as it stands, however, the nearest approach to detiniteness on the ground of historical allusions would be found in Ps 46 as applied to the overthrow of Sennacherib, Ps 74 and 79 to the period of the Maccabees. Ps 68, which by earlier critics was assigned to the reign of Jehoshaphat, almost certainly belongs to the