RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Psalms
which could have been inserted without difficulty in various places such as I Sam. xxvi.-xxvii., and II Sam. vii., xii., and xv. sqq. The fact that, according to the opposing argument, the redactor added only two pieces wrongly attributed to David speaks for his sobriety. (As to the Davidic authorship of psalms in the present Psalter, there is no absolutely stringent proof that any particular one is his, since in no case is there absolute security that the superscription is correct. But the probability is great that such exist. Were there once Davidic psalms in greater numbers, some might have been forgotten, some worked over; but it is improbable that no trace of them would have been left. A hindrance to the recognition of Davidic psalms is the fact that to him were attributed psalms which smack of later thought and ideals. But if psalms are found having the characteristics of II Sam. i. 17 sqq., there is to be found the type attributable to him. By this test poems like Pss. iii., iv., viii., xviii.a, xxiv., xxix., and many others may be regarded as Davidic.
In answer to the question of the lower limits of psalm-composition it may be remarked that in early times Maccabean psalms were recognized. Thus Theodore of Mopsuestia [d. 428] placed seventeen psalms in that period, and Calvin also recognized Maccabean psalms. On the other hand, 6. Recogni- scholars like Gesenius, Ewald, Bleek, tion of Late Hupfeld, and Dillmann controverted
Psalms, the position. The possibility and even the probability of the writing of psalms at that period must be admitted, the only question being how they could gain admission to the canon. So far as probability of composition is concerned, the late production of Daniel, Ecclesiasticus, and the Psalms of Solomon show literature still in course of composition down to the time of Pompey. In I Chron. xvi. 8-36 is a psalm which corresponds in part with Pss. cv.-cvi., and contains also the doxology of book four of the Psalter. This seems to show that the Chronicler (c. 300) already had the Psalter in practically its present form — at least so far as its division into five books is concerned. This does not preclude that individual psalms were added afterward, though hardly the majority of the present number. To the same conclusion points Ecclesiasticus, in its preface, when it speaks of the author knowing the law, prophets, and " other writings," that is, the threefold division of the canon. It is hardly likely that in the author's time Daniel was in the canon, though that the Psalter was there appears from the considerations just adduced from the Chronicler's narrative. Ecclus. xlvii. 8-10 seems to imply a Psalter, and yet psalms like xliv., lxxiv., lxxix., lxxxiii., and others appear to belong to this period and may have come into the canon as did Daniel.
Duhm has set a lower limit as late as 70 b.c. or even the year 1, thinking that the period of Aristobulus and Alexander Jannseus was fruitful in the composition of psalms; this brings us down to the period of the Psalms of Solomon. It is known that the later Hasmoneans discarded more and more the earlier theocratic ideals of the original Maccabean movement; they adopted heathen customs
and acted as did other princes. This aroused the opposition of the Pharisees, but induced the support of the Sadducees. Out of this contest 7. Com- arose the (Pharisaic) Psalms of Soloparison with mon, which regarded the conquest by Psalms of Pompey as induced by Sadducean Solomon, wickedness, led by the royal house. Now if canonical psalms arose out of this period, they should have the ring of the age of the Psalms of Solomon. This Duhm thinks he hears in psalms like ii., xviii., xx., xxi., xlv., and others, being the Sadducean compositions in praise of the king, while psalms like ix., x., xiv., lvi.-lviii. are the Pharisaic answers, which correspond in tone to the Psalms of Solomon. Now, that there are general similarities of thought in the canonical Psalter and in the Psalms of Solomon may be granted. But in their characteristics, especially in those characteristics which give ground for assigning to the collection a certain date, the latter stand by themselves and in distinction from the canonical psalms. Thus there is read in the Psalms of Solomon, i. 2, " Suddenly the alarm of war was heard before me"; i. 3, " their transgressions were greater than those of the heathen that were before them; the holy things of the Lord they utterly polluted"; ii. 15, (the daughter of Jerusalem was dishonored because )" she had denied herself in unclean intercourse"; viii. 8 sqq., "in secret places beneath the earth were their iniquities, the son with the mother and the father with the daughter wrought confusion, they went up to the Lord's altar full of all uncleanness" ; xvii. 5, " On account of our sins the godless (the Hasmoneans) rose against us, they laid waste the throne of David in their triumph"; xvii. 21, " from the ruler to the vilest they lived in their sin, the king a transgressor, the judge in disobedience, and the people in sin." This is the trend of the psalms which Duhm puts about the year 70, and such a trend is absent in the psalms selected by him as representative of the " Pharisaic " canonical psalms, which say nothing of the characteristic sins of the Hasmoneans. Where echoes of the canonical psalms appear in the pseudo- Solomonic book, the fact is due to following the model set in the canonical productions. This is exemplified in the patterning of Ps. Sol. xi. upon Isa. xl. sqq. There is further to be reckoned the inherent improbability of the inclusion of Sadducean psalms in praise of the hated Hasmoneans finding entrance into the canon, apart altogether from the difficulty of so many psalms getting in at all in so late a time.
VI. Theology: To speak in the strict sense of a theology of the Psalter is not permissible because of the fact that it is a collection covering centuries in time, the individual compositions coming from various circles, some written for use in the Temple, others for public or private use outside i. Doctrine of the established cultus, some speakof God and ing for the community at large, others of Right- expressing private and personal joy, eousness. grief, or pain, and still others representing a narrow community of the pious and pietistic. It is often difficult to classify particular psalms, let alone to express the general
Psalms Pseudepigrapha