l'i: \|si .
In Psa. lxxii. 'jo we find all the preceding composi- tions i i lxxii) styled Prayers of David, because many of them are strictly prayers, and all are pervaded by the spirit and tone of supplication. This notice has Suggested that the Psalms may in the earliest times have been known as lYDBFl, tephillolh, " Prayers;' and, in fact. ••Prayer" is the title prefixed to the most an- cient of all the psalms, that of Moses (Psa. xc). But the same designation is in the superscriptions applied to only three besides, Psa. xvii. lxxxvi. cii : nor have till the psalms the character of prayers. See Pkayeb.
The other special designations applied to particular psalms are the following: -P'i,) S/iir, "Song," the out- pouring of the soul in thanksgiving, used in the first instance of a hymn of private gratitude (Psa. xxxi. afterwards of hymns of great national thanksgiv- ing i Psa. xlvi, xlviii, lxv. etc.) ; b~Z'~Z. Maskil, "In- struction" or ••Homily" (Psa. xxxii. xlii. xliv. etc; comp. the ~~~Z'z:iZ. " I will instruct thee." in Psa. xxxii. Si; ZTZ". Mil.iiiiii, "Private Memorial." if from the root Bra (perhaps also with an anagranimaticnl allu- sion to the root ")-•", "to support."" maintain ;" comp. Psa. xvi. 5) (Psa. xvi, lvi lix); nSHSJ, Eduth, "Testi- mony" (Psa. lx, Ixxx) : and """'-. Skiffgay6n,"Irreg- ular or Dithyrambic Ode" (Psa. vii). The strict mean- ing of these terms is in general to be gathered from the earlier superscriptions. Once made familiar to the psalmists, they were afterwards employed by them more loosely. (See § iv, below.)
II. Numeration of th* Psalms. -The Christian Church obviously received the Psalter from the dews not only as a constituent portion ofthe sacred volume ofHoly Scripture, but also as the liturgical hymn-book which the Jewish Church had regularly used in the Temple. The number of separate psalms contained in it is. by the concordant testimony of all ancient authorities, one hun- dred and fifty; the avowedly "supernumerary" psalm which appears at the end ofthe Greek and Syriac Psal- ters.-on Da\ id's victory over Goliath," being manifest- ly apocryphal. This total number commends itself by its internal probability as having proceeded from the last sacred collector and editor ofthe Psalter. In the
details, however, of the numbering, both the Greek and
Syriac Psalters differ from the Hebrew. The Greek translators joined together Psa. ix. x and Psa. Cxiv, cxv, and then divided Psa. cxvi and Psa. cxlvii: this was perpetuated in the \eis ion s derived From the Greek, and among others in the Latin Vulgate. The Syriac
PSALMS
747
PSALMS
so far followed the Greek as to join together Psa. cxiv, cxv, and to divide Psa. cxlvii. Of the three divergent systems of numbering, the Hebrew (as followed in our A. V.) is, even on internal grounds, to be preferred. It is decisive against the Greek numbering that Psa. cxvi, being symmetrical in its construction, will not bear to be divided ; and against the Syriac that it destroys the outward correspondence in numerical place between the three great triumphal psalms, Psa. xviii, lxvili, cxviii, as also between the two psalms containing the praise of the Law, Psa. xix, cxix. That Psa. xlii, xliii were originally one is evident from the continuation of the refrain. There are also some discrepancies in the ver- sual Dumberings. That of our A.V. frequently differs from that of the Hebrew in consequence of the Jewish practice of reckoning the superscription as the first verse. See Verse.
III. Ancient Collection and Division.— When the Psalms, as a whole, were collected, and by ichom, are questions that cannot be confidently answered. The Talmudists most absurdly considered David the collec- tor of them all (Berahoth, i, 9). It is certain that the book, as it now stands, could not have been formed be- fore the building of the second Temple, for Psa. cxxvi was evidently composed at that period. In all prob- ability' it was formed by Ezra and his contemporaries, about B.C. 450 (Ewald,"/W. Bucket; ii, 205).
But in the arrangement of the book there is manifest proof of its gradual formation out of several smaller col- lections, each ending with a peculiar formula. The Psal- ter is divided in the Hebrew into five books (detailed below) and also in the Sept, version, which proves the division to be older than B.C. 200. Some have fancied that this fivefold division did not originally exist, but that it arose simply from a desire to have as many parts in the Psalms as there are in the law of Moses. But strong reasons demand the rejection of such a fancy. Why should this conformity to the Pentateuch be de- sired and effected in the Psalms, and not also in Prov- erbs or in the Prophets'? The l\ve books bear decided marks, both from tradition and internal evidence, of be- ing not arbitrary divisions, but distinct and independent collections by various hands.
The first book (i-xli) consists wholly of David's songs (see Vriemoet, Nomenclator Davidis ad solos Psalmos pertinet [Post. 1628]), his name being prefixed to all except i, ii, x, and xxxiii ; nor do we find in it a trace of any but David's authorship. No such trace exists in the mention of the "Temple" (v, 7), for that word is even in 1 Sam. i, 9, iii, 3 applied to the Tabernacle ; nor yet in the phrase " bringeth back the captivity" (xiv, 7), which is elsewhere used, idiomatically, with great latitude of meaning (Job xlii. 10 ; Hos. vi, 11 ; Ezra xvi, 53) ; nor yet in the acrosticism of Psa. xxv, etc., for that all acrostic psalms are of late date is a purely gra- tuitous assumption, and some even of the most sceptical critics admit the Davidic authorship of the partially acrostic Psa. ix, x. All the psalms of book i being thus Davidic, we may well believe that the compilation of the book was also David's work. In favor of this is the circumstance that it does not comprise all David's psalms, nor his latest, which yet would have been all included in it by any subsequent collector; also the cir- cumstance that its two prefatory psalms, although not superscribed, are yet shown by internal evidence to have proceeded from David himself; and furthermore, that of the two recensions of the same hymn (Psa. xiv, liii), it prefers that which seems to have been more spe- cially adapted by its royal author to the Temple service. Others with less reason assign this division to the time of Hezekiah, who is known to have ordered a collection of Solomon's proverbs (Prov. xxv, 1), and to have com- manded the Levites to sing the words of David (2 Chron. xxix, 30).