The question so much debated in recent times, who is to be regarded as the speaking subject (‘das betende Ich’) in the Psalms,t+ must undoubtedly, with Olshausen, Reuss, Cheyne, et a/., be answered very frequently in favour of the so-called collective subject, as against the almost uniformly individual interpretation of Ewald, Hupfeld, Duhm, e qi. Reuss in particular has rightly argued that the endless complaints against cruel foes and perse- cutors can be felt to be intelligible and justified,
* What appears to the present writer the most probable view of the case is as follows. The oldest collection, Ps 3-41, was already formed in the time of Ezra; then, say towards the close of the Persian period, a second collection, made up of further (alleged) Davidie psalms (51-71), songs of contemporaries of David (42-49. 50. 72. 73-83), and a supplementary collection (84-89). The third collection (90-150) can scarcely have origin- ated before the founding of the Hasmonean dynasty by Simon (B.C. 142ff.). Psalms 1 and 2 were probably first prefixed by the final redactor of the whole Psalter, as a very appropriate pro- logue.
“As to the Book of Lamentations, it may suffice to remark that the oldest components (chs. 2 and 4) are based upon quite fresh recollections of the destruction of Jerusalem in 587, whereas ch. 5 may belong to the 6th cent., ch. 1 to the 5th, but ch, 3 as late as the 3rd cent. B.C,
+ On this controverted question, cf. R. Smend, art. ‘Ueber das Ich der Psalmen’ in ZA/'W, 1888, p. 49 ff. [where the idea of the collective subject is almost consistently carried through] ; J. Z. Schuurmans Stekhoven, ZA7W, 1889, p. 131 ff. [a partial modification of Smend’s view]; G. Beer, Jndividual- und Gemeindepsalmen, Marburg, 1894; F. Coblenz, Ueber das betende Ich in den Psalmen, Frankfurt, 1897; H. Roy, Die Volksgemeinde und die Gemeinde der Frommen im Psalter, Gnadenfeld, 1897 ; D. Leimdorfer, Das Psalter -ego in den Ich- Psalmen, 1897; Engert, Der betende Gerechte der Psalmen, Wiirzburg, 1902. The last six of these insist with more or less emphasis that it is not the actual people that is to be looked on as the ‘betende Ich,’ but only the godly portion, which pines under the oppression of the enemy and prays and hopes for deliverance. They point out, further, that (altogether apart from psalms which are absolutely individual in their reference) even the psalms which represent the community, although spoken in the name of the latter, were primarily the work of a particular individual.
724
RELIGION OF ISRAEL
nay even touching, only if they are referred not to private affairs, but to the straits ever the same to which the godly community is reduced by heathen oppressors and by renegades within the nation itself. It would, however, be altogether an un- justifiable exaggeration to seek to refer practically all the Psalms to a collective subject—the godly community. On the contrary, for the proper ap- preciation of the Psalter, it is of the very highest importance to note that ‘individualism’ in religion, for which the way was paved especially by Jere- miah, already has clear expression given to it in many ways in this very book.* ‘The numerous witnesses to the pining and striving of individual suppliants after living communion with their God, and to the blessed assurance of this communion, will alone explain how the Psalter has been able to serve even down to the present day as the prayer- book even of Christian nations.
1. Conception of God.—(a) As in exilic and post- exilic prophecy, the conception of God is seen in the Psalms oceupying a height which could not be surpassed even on New Testament soil except in a few points. The solity of Jahweh (18%), the impossibility of comparing Him with any other being, the utter nothingness of idols (115%), are to the psalmists axioms which need no proof. As Creator of the world (241 7416 954 104% and often), and that by the simple word of His power (33° 9), He is at the same time also the absolute Ruler of the whole (33% 467 9% 4724 656% 667 828 103! 1134). He glorifies Himself continually in inanimate nature (8% 19°; in 29%? by the majesty of His thunder); hence it is summoned, as well as living creatures, to praise Him (148**-). Above all, wonderful appears His. condescension to man, who by himself is so weak; He has con- stituted him only a little short of the nature of Divine beings (8°, with a manifest allusion to Gn 1°78), The care of God for His creatures is evi- dently not separated, after the manner of Christian dogmatics, from the work of creation and classed as a preserving and governing, or even thought of as a continued working of laws of nature once established ; but consists in ever renewed, inde- pendent creative acts of an actively ruling God (6518 10418. 272. 14515. 1478),
(6) The solitary limitation of the being of God which in itself is absolutely without limits, which might be discovered, would be the frequent mention of His heavenly dwelling-place (114 14? 207, and very often). But this form of spatial limitation could not be dispensed with by the conception of God, even at its highest reach, if 1t was to escape the danger of being dissipated into pantheism. The no less frequent allusions to Zion as God’s abode and the starting-point of His action (20°) 50? 68!” ete.) does not, as we have already had occasion to explain, contradict in the least the idea of the God of heaven. Heaven is His throne, Zion the place of His revealed presence, which is not identical with His most essential being. The magnificent description of the theophany in Ps 185", where God mounts the cherub and thus flies abroad, belongs to the domain of poetic licence, equally with His appearing from Sinai in 68%,