IV. Superscriptions.— Ail the I '.-alms, except thirty- lour, bear superscriptions. According to some, there are only twenty-live exceptions, as they reckon iT,!IP^!l, hallelujah, a title in all the Psalms which commence with it. To each of these exceptions the Talmud (Babyl. Coil. Aboda Sarah, foL 24, col. 2) gives the name N";T* N~""T". Orphan Psalm. It is confess- edly very difficult, if not impossible, to explain all the terms employed in the inscriptions; and hence critics have differed exceedingly in their conjectures. The difficulty, arising no doubt from ignorance of the Tem- ple sic, «ns felt, ii would seem, as early as the age
of the Sept.; and it was lilt so much by the translators of our A. V. that they generally retained the Hebrew word-, even though Luther had set the example of translating them to the best of his ability. It is worth observing that the difficulty appears to have determined Coverdale (1535) to omit nearly all except names of au- thors; thus in Psa. lx. which is lix in his version, he gives only a r.«iin>< of David.
The authority of the titles is a matter of doubt. By most of the ancient critics they were considered gen- uine and of equal authority with the Psalms themselves, while mosl of the modems rejecl them wholly or in part. They were wholly rejected at the close of the ith century by Theodore of Mopsuestia, one of the ablest and most judicious of ancient interpreters | Kosenmiiller, Hist. Inii r/in iii/initis l.ihriiriim Sacrorum, iii. 256). < >u the oilier hand, it deserves to he noticed thai they are received by Tholuck and Hengsteuberg in their works on the Psalms. Of the antiquity of the inscriptions there can he no question, for they are found in the .Sept. They are BUppOSed to be even much older than this version, since they were no longer intelligible to the translator, who often makes no sense of them. Their obscurity might, however, have been owing not so much to their antiquity as to the translator's resi- dence in Egypt, and consequent ignorance of the psal- mody of the Temple Bervice in Jerusalem. At any rate.
the appearance of the lilies in the Sept. can only prove
them to be al i a- ancient as the daysoi Ezra. Then
ii is argued by many thai they must be as old as the Psalms themselves, since it is customary for Oriental poets to pniix titles to their Bongs. Instances are found in Arabic poems, but these are very unlike the Hebrew inscriptions. Much more important traces of the custom appear in Isa. xxxviii. !». in Ilab. iii, 1, and in 2 Sam. i. 17, 18 (Tholuck, Psalmen, p. xxiv). The other instances commonly appealed to in Exod. xv, 1 ; Deut. xxxi, 30; Judg.V, I ; ■_' Sam. xxii. 1. furnish no evidence, since they are not proper titles of the Songs so much as brief statements connecting them with the narrative. But in •_' Sam. xxiii, 1 and Numb, xxiv, 3 there is strong proof of the usage, if, with Tholuck, we
take the verses as inscriptions, and not as integral parts of the songs, which most hold them justly to be from their poetical form.
The following considerations seem to militate against the authority of the titles: (1.) The analogy between them and the subscriptions to the apostolical epistles. The latter are now universally rejected: why not t lie former? (2.) The Greek and Syriac versions exhibit them with great and numerous variations, often alter- ing the Hebrew ( as in Psa. xxvii), and sometimes giv- ing a heading where the Hebrew has none (as in Psa. xciii-xcvii i. Would the ancient translators have taken such liberties, or could such variations have arisen, if the titles had been considered sacred like the Psalms themselves? At any rate, the existence of these glaring variations is sufficient to induce a distrust ol the titles in their present form, even though they had been once sanctioned by inspired authority. If ever Ezra settled them, the variations in versions and manuscripts i Eich* horn, Einkilung, iii. 190, 195) have tended since to make them doubtful. (.">.) The inscriptions are occa- sionally thought to be at variance with the contents of the Psalms. Sometimes the author is believed to be incorrectly given, as when David is named over psalms referring to the captivity, as in Psa. xiv. 7: xxv. 22; li, 20, 21; lxix, 36. It is not unlikely, however, as Tholuck thinks, that these references to the exile were added .luring that period to the genuine text of the royal singer. < Hhers.as Calvin .ami Hengstenberg,with far le-s probability, take these passages in a figurative or spiritual sense. Also Psa. exxxix, it is supposed, cannot well be David's, for its style is not free from Chaldaisms. Then sometimes the occasion is incorrect- ly specified, as in Psa. xxx. unless, indeed, this refers to the dedication of the siti ofth Temple ( 1 Chron.xxii, 1), as Rosenmiiller, Tholuck, and Hengstenberg think alier Veueina. The real solution of the controversy lies in the answer to this question: Do they, when individually sifted, approve themselves as so generally correct, and as so free from any single fatal objection to their credit, as to claim our universal confidence':1 This cannot be fully discussed here, although intimations are given below calculated to confirm the accuracy of tin- titles as found in the Hebrew and English Bible, especially as to au- thorship and occasion. We must simply avow our con- viction, founded on thorough examination, that they are, when rightly interpreted, fully trustworthy, and that every separate objection that has been made to the correctness of any one of them can be fairly met. More- oxer, some of the arguments of their assailants oh\ ious- 1\ recoil upon themselves. Thus when it is alleged that the com cuts of Psa. xx xiv have no connection with the occasion indicated in the superscription, we reply that