THE DIVISION AND
ORDER OF THE PSALMS
R. DEAN
ANDERSON JR.
I. Introduction
RESEARCH
into the psalter was revolutionized early in this
century by
the
work of H. Gunkel and his introduction of Gattungsforschung.
This
work
was subsequently developed by many, notably S. Mowinckel,
and the
task
and modern classification of Gattungen continues. Yet for the question
at
hand, this modern research has not been all that helpful. D. J. A. Clines,
in
his summary of research since 1955, for instance, states that "as yet a
real
connection
between psalms bearing the same title has still to be discovered."1
The
various modern schemes of classification do not account for the present
arrangement
of the psalter, nor for the psalter's
own indications of arrange-
ment by its
superscripts.2 Therefore this essay has concentrated upon what
I
have considered to be basic issues. I shall consider first the basic textual
evidence
for the psalter together with related issues arising
from this evi-
dence. Thereupon
follows a discussion of the basic division of the psalter
into
five books. A discussion of superscripts and postscripts and their rela-
tion to the
arrangement and order of the psalms ensues. Finally I go briefly
through
the five books themselves attempting to show what may be said of
the
arrangement of the psalms in each.3
II. Textual Evidence
The Masoretic
psalter, as is commonly known, is divided into five
books.
This
division will be discussed below. The division of individual psalms in
the
Masoretic tradition is not as uniform as one might
suspect. There are
several
individual cases in books 1-3 where mss show varying traditions of
combination
of psalms. In books 4-5, however, many mss combine not a few
psalms
in various ways. The most important of these combinations will be
discussed
in more detail below.
1 D. J. A. Clines,
"Psalm Research Since 1955: II. The Literary Genres," TynBul 20
(1969)
119.
2 Cf. G. H. Wilson, The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter (SBLDS
76;
Press,
1985) 161-62.
3 Given the sheer volume
of material written on the psalms, and the number of psalms
themselves
involved, any conclusions reached in this essay should be regarded as
tentative.
219
220
The evidence from
ought
not to be overlooked in a study of our Masoretic psalter. This evi-
dence has engendered
much debate, particularly over the question of how
the
material is to be related to the MT. G.
H. Wilson goes over this material
and
its discussion in quite some detail, in particular considering the debate
between
J. A. Sanders et al. and P. W. Skehan et al. over
11QPsa and its
function
at
of
mss forming a reasonably sized collection of psalms at
merits
attention.4 It is the more interesting because of its use of many
psalms
in common with MT (from books 4 and 5), both in a different order
and
in conjunction with psalms not known from
on
palaeographical grounds to the first half of the
first century AD.5
It is impossible in a paper of this
size to go into any significant detail on
this
matter, yet we ought to note the parameters of the debate and how it
affects
our view of
sidered as a canonical
and therefore authoritative, open ended canon of
psalms.
He argues further that it precedes the completion of the MT psalter
as
canon, forming an important step in that process. Thus, Sanders places
the
completion of the MT psalter as canon at the end of
the first century
in
Jamnia.6
Skehan has
opposed this view arguing the reverse, i.e. that 11QPsa is
merely
a liturgical collection with no real authority at all and no bearing
on
the MT psalter as canon, which at least in its first
four books was
complete
by the fourth century BC, and the final section not much later. He
argues
that 11QPsa is textually dependent on
shown
that Skehan's criticisms go too far and cannot be
sustained.7 There
is
no real evidence that 11QPsa was dependent on MT. Both may well have
been
dependent on a common tradition of psalm materials. Furthermore
both
the MT psalter and 11QPsa seem to function
as liturgical collections.
(It
is important to note at this point that the discussion essentially concerns
4 See J. A. Sanders, The Psalms Scroll of
Clarendon,
1965); id., "Cave 11 Surprises and the Question of Canon," McCormick Quarterly 21
(1968)
284-98; P. W. Skehan, "The Qumran Manuscripts
and Textual Criticism," in Volume du
Congris Strasbourg 1956 (VTSup
4; Leiden: Brill, 1957) 148-58. All other
are
more fragmented.
making
judgments based on fragmentary texts" (Editing,
67).
5 Sanders, The Psalms Scroll, 9.
6 For a critique of the
notion of a late first-century council at Jamnia that
determined the
extent
of the canon, see R. C. Newman, "The Council of Jamnia
and the Old Testament
Canon,"
WTJ 38 (1976) 319-49.
7
inadequate
(The Old Testament Canon of the,
Early Judaism [
books
4 and 5 of the psalter.8 The evidence at
whelmingly supports the
arrangement of MT books 1-3 as we know them.
11QPsa
begins at Psalm 101, containing no earlier psalm than this except
Psalm
93.)
edition
based on MT,9 seems unsure whether to see a parallel development
of
MT books 4 and 5 and 11QPsa, or whether to suppose (with Sanders)
that
the
mately led to the MT
arrangement of books 4 and 5.10 I propose that a
hypothesis
of parallel development is more likely to be correct. There is in
the
first place evidence that the Masoretic psalter even in books 4 and 5 was
extant
at least contemporaneously with the community at
evidence
comes in the form of both Josephus and the LXX. First, Josephus'
(c.
AD 37-110) earliest work. Against Apion,
mentions the following in a
discussion
of the (for him completed) canon: ai[ de> poipai> te<ssarej [sc. tw?n
bibli<wn ] u!mnouj ei]j to>n qeo>n
kai> toi?j a]nqrw<poij u[poqh<kaj tou?
bi<ou
perie<xousin.11 Secondly, although the date of the LXX psalter may be
obscure,
it must at least have been completed well before the first century
AD
when it was known throughout
by
the NT).12
What then are we to say of 11QPsa?
That it was regarded as containing
all
canonical psalms seems highly probable in view of the Davidic prose
section.
This section seems to ascribe Davidic authority (if not authorship)
to
the entire collection. David as the inspired psalmist par excellence has a
central
place within this collection.13 The so-called apocryphal psalms
8 The only evidence
against MT books 1-3 are two mss (4QPsa, frgs.
c, d; 4QPsq, col. I)
containing
Psalms 31 and 33 (thus excluding Psalm 32), and one ms (4QPsa, frg. g) containing
Psalms
38 and 71.
9 In addition to the
arguments above, this view is based on two pieces of evidence: (1)
more
than one copy of this "psalter" has been
found (cf. 11QPsb), and (2) the prose section near
the
end of the MS gives David's last words (as the inspired and prophetic psalmist)
and a tally
of
David's compositions. Both these factors, in
functioned
as canon (cf. Editing, 66). The
second factor seems to me stronger than the first.
10
is
not possible to demonstrate the existence of a single consistent Psalter
tradition at
Interestingly,
Sanders, in his review of
criticism
of his own position.
11 "The remaining
four books contain hymns to God and precepts for the conduct of
human
life" (Ap. 1.40; LCL
translation).
12 One would suspect that
the psalter, being so crucial liturgically, would
have been trans-
lated soon after the
Pentateuch. H. B. Swete, in addition to the evidence
of NT quotations,
shows
usage from early non-Christian Hellenists (An
Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek [rev. R. E. Ottley;
NT
speaks of the psalms as a "book" (singular) in Luke 20:42 and Acts
1:20. This seems to
imply
a finished canonical product.
13 We should be careful
here (contra Sanders; see
the
implications of the prose section. That it does not imply Davidic authorship
for the whole
222
contained
here apparently bear no mark of having been written by the
shown
that these psalms exhibit a fully biblical character.14 This fact
tends
to
lend support to the apparent
psalms
of Davidic (temple?) origin. Could we perhaps regard these extra-
biblical
psalms as indeed examples of more Davidic and prophetic com-
positions
than those known to us, dating back to the times of David and the
prophetic
schools following him that provided compositions for the temple
liturgy?
Our present MT psalter seems to be no more than a
collection of
what
must once have been a rather massive supply of temple psalms.
11QPsa
itself testifies to a much larger corpus of material when it notes that
David's
compositions alone totalled 4,050.15 The
Qumran sect thus, when
it
left
of
psalms from a temple depository of prophetic liturgical material.16
The LXX is basically a translation
from a proto-Masoretic type copy of
the
five books of psalms. Our main interest in it concerns its witness to the
division
of psalms and to superscripts. With respect to the division of
psalms,
the LXX also has 150 psalms; however, they are divided somewhat
collection
is clear from the inclusion of Psalm 127 with the same superscript as the MT
denoting
Solomon as author (cf. MT Ps 72:20). Furthermore, there is no evidence that
super-
scripts
were deliberately altered or edited at
authorship
of any given psalm material. Thus the superscripts in 11QPsa often
fail to indicate
an
author. In this ms and throughout the
ingly agree with
The
differences consist in both additional material (compared to MT) and less
material. Thus
it
cannot be fairly stated that
is
rather weak when he suggests, on the basis of two instances where 11 QPsa adds dvdl, as over
against
one instance where it omits the same, that
(p.
130)! In fact, a study of
and
MT superscripts and postscripts, shows that the number of times where
scripts
or postscripts contain less material than MT far outweigh the cases where they
contain
more.
In verifiable cases,
Of
interest is the fact that, in total,
lacking
such in MT and twice contains no reference to Davidic authorship where MT has
it.
In
my judgment, the differences on this score between MT and
to
suggest that neither text should be designated expansive, but that the
witnesses of both are
valuable
attestations to possible original documentation.
14 See
15 It should be noted
that 11 QPsa in no way claims that such a
number of psalms and
songs
from David were extant at the time of its compilation. Of interest, however, is
also the
ninth-century
AD report of a find of biblical and extrabiblical
Hebraic writings in a rock-cave
near
lation see O. Braun,
"Ein Brief des Katholikos
Timotheos," Oriens Christianus (1901) 299-313.
16 In this respect we
ought to remember the necessity of distinguishing between a
sectarian
community and the biblical texts that such a community may use. Admitting that
one's
judgment on the quality of the text that they used. In this case there is no
evidence to
suggest
that the community deliberately altered any biblical text material that they
brought with
them.
differently.
Two pairs of psalms in MT are joined in LXX (9 and 10, 114
and
115), and two psalms in MT are split in two by the LXX (116 and 147).
This
evidence will be weighed below.
An analysis of LXX superscripts shows
that, apart from a section of book
4
and book 5 of the psalter respectively, there is very
little variation from
MT.
Where additional material occurs it seems to refer mostly to the litur-
gical occasions when
such psalms were sung (e.g., Psalms 24, 29, 38, 48, 93,
94—MT
numbering). Such designations are by their own nature secondary
to
the original psalm settings, yet that is not to say that the LXX translators
merely
added them.17 In terms of the historical superscripts, there seems
to
be
only one case of secondary dependence on a historical book.18 There
is
no
evidence that the translators actually added anything to the text before
them,19
and of course, as is well known, superscripted liturgical information
is
also present in MT (e.g., Psalm 92 and the songs of ascents, Psalms 120-
134).
Occasionally the LXX has genre designations where there is only an
author
given in MT (e.g., Psalms 11, 14, 25), but there is no consistency in
this
at all, and there are far more examples where the LXX together with
MT
give the author alone.
It has been alleged that the LXX
exhibits a trend in ascribing more
psalms
to Davidic authorship, and thus it is said to enhance the Davidic
authority
of the psalter.20 This assertion is at best too generalized. A broad
overview
of the psalter reveals very little difference between
MT and LXX,
except
for one clear group of psalms (Psalms 91-99). If we pass over this
17 In that regard they
are similar to the MT superscripts which are often also secondary
to
the original psalm settings.
18 The LXX superscript of
Psalm 96 reads: o!te o[ oi#koj &]kodomei?to meta> th>n
ai]xmalwsi<an: &]dh>
t&? Dauid ("when the house was built after
the captivity; a song of
David").
This is sometimes taken to indicate that the translator knew that his
ascription to David
was
incorrect, since he also made the psalm postexilic by referring to the building
of the second
temple;
see F Delitzsch, Psalms,
in Commentary on the Old Testament in Ten Volumes (repr.
Commentary on
the Psalms
(ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1906) 2.299. However, this seems
pretty
unlikely. It may be that a Davidic psalm was used at that time and so attained
the added
historical
superscript. However, it seems to me more probable that the reference here is
to the
building
of the tent for the ark after David retrieved and brought it to
captured
by the Philistines and so taken into captivity (1 Sam 4-6). This incident is
referred to in
Ps
78:61 where LXX also translates ai]xmalwsi<an. Note that vzf here refers to the ark (cf.
Ps
132:8). The superscript probably thus derives from 1 Chr
16 where Psalm 96 is supposedly
utilized
as part of the song of praise recorded by the Chronicler at this event. The
historical
part
of the superscript is therefore probably dependent on Chronicles. MT has a
similar case
of
superscript dependence on a historical book in Psalm 18, derived from 2 Sam
22:1 (cf.
B.
S. Childs, "Psalm Titles and Midrashic
Exegesis," JSS 16 [1971] 139).
19 An exception to this
may be Psalm 31 (LXX 30), where e]ksta<sewj seems to be
derived
from the translation itself (LXX v. 23).
20 E.g., C. Th. Niemeyer,
Het problem van de rangschikking
der Psalmen (
Luctor et Emergo, 1950) 149, who includes the MT, 1 Chronicles, and
NT in this trend; A.
Pietersma, "David in
the Greek Psalms," VT 30 (1980)
213, who includes the MT in this trend;
224
special
section of book 4 for a moment (to be discussed below), additional
ascriptions
to David occur only five times. Of these,
attest
Davidic authorship. It should also be noted that twice the LXX lacks
designation
of Davidic authorship where MT has it (Psalms 122 and 124)!
Few
would argue that MT is expansive here!21
Overall, in cases where LXX contains
superscript material not found in
MT,
it seems clear that the translators were nevertheless reading a Hebrew
Vorlage. This is shown
by the fact that in these so-called additions, equally
difficult
Greek (relying on semitic constructions) is utilized
(e.g., t&? for l of authorship;
improbable nouns in genitive constructions wrongly interpret-
ing supposed Hebrew bound
constructions, such as ai#noj &]dh?j). That is
not
to say, however, that this Hebrew Vorlage is always correct. Its textual
value
must be assessed in each case, comparing evidence from MT and
Psalm
99 (LXX) is highly likely on internal evidence (see comments below),
whilst
on the other hand the LXX ascription of Davidic authorship to
Psalms
43 and 137 is extremely unlikely.22
It is interesting to note the
"additions" to Psalms 91 and 93-99. Here,
where
the MT for the most part provides no superscripts at all, the LXX
consistently
has rather full designations. Similarly, the superscripts to
Psalms
143-48 (including a variant division) in book 5 are noteworthy.
What
makes this phenomenon so interesting is that it occurs precisely in the
last
two books of the psalter. It is also these last two
books that in
were
organizationally most variant from
ports
the theory that books 1-3 of the psalter were very
early stabilized, and
that
mss of books 4 and 5 continued to exhibit fluctuation to a later date,
probably
indicating that they were put together at some later time.
21 In this respect Pietersma quite incorrectly alleges that "all that is
in the MT is in the
LXX"
("David," 214). He seems to acknowledge the two cases in point on p.
217 n. 11.
22 Pietersma
("David") argues that the extent of additional material in the LXX
super-
scripts
actually going back to a Hebrew Vorlage may be less than the text of A. Rahlfs
indicates
(ed.
Psalmi cum Odis [
parts
of the LXX text tradition show a tendency to increase Davidic titles.
Nevertheless, I am
not
convinced that those superscripts overwhelmingly attested in the mss tradition
are later
additions.
In general, Pietersma's argumentation is not always
based on much evidence. For
instance,
he argues that since o!te is only found
in superscripts omitted in MT, it is therefore
probably
secondary (p. 221). However, the total number of historical superscripts (where
o!te
might
be expected to be found) is only 13 in the MT tradition anyway. This is far too
small
a
witness to function effectively as a control on vocabulary! Cautions here not
sufficiently
noted
by Pietersma are (1) the presence of variant Hebrew superscripts in
that
even in Pietersma's view at least in one case the LXX
omits reference to David where MT
has
it (Psalm 124 MT), and (3) the fact that even Pietersma
admits that there are cases where
a
different Hebrew Vorlage
is likely (e.g., Psalm 104 MT), and these could lead us to suspect
more.
THE DIVISION AND
ORDER OF THE PSALMS 225
III. Division into Books
As is well known, the Masoretic psalter is divided into
five books. This
basic
arrangement is also attested by the LXX. As noted above, however,
books
1-3 seem to have been well established much earlier than books 4
and
5.
The division into five books is
clearly supported by various indications in
the
psalter itself. In the first place each book seems to
end with an appro-
priate doxology (cf.
Ps 41:14; 72:18-19; 89:53; 106:48). It has often been
suggested
that Psalm 150, or alternatively 146-50, should be seen as the
doxology
for book 5. This will be discussed below. Niemeyer and Wilson are
probably
correct when they argue that these doxologies should be seen as
integral
parts of the psalms they are attached to, and not as editorial
additions.23
Their appearance at the ends of the respective books, however,
is
highly suggestive of deliberate placement.
Another way that these books are
distinguished is by the use of the
divine
name. Book 1 clearly prefers the name Yahweh,
utilizing it 273
times
(as opposed to Elohim,
15 times). Book 2, on the other hand, prefers
Elohim (164 times, as
opposed to Yahweh, 30 times). Book 3
is mixed. The
Asaph psalms (73-83)
clearly prefer Elohim;
however, the rest of the book
prefers
Yahweh. Books 4 and 5 both prefer Yahweh (book 4 contains no use
of
Elohim, and
book 5 employs it only 7 times, as compared to 236 uses
of
Yahweh).
One final indication of the division
into books has been argued by Wil-
son.24
He notes that the superscripts play an important role in this division.
Whilst
no part of the superscripts may be seen as the primary editing
principle,
there are certain important factors to note. First, each book is
clearly
marked off from the preceding by a change of authorship. The only
exception
here is the transition between books 4 and 5, which is more fluid.
He
also notes that the transition between author groupings within any given
book
is softened by overlapping genre titles. For example, the psalms of
Korah end at Psalm
49. Psalm 50 is Asaphite, and Psalms 51-65 are
Davidic.
The
fact that Psalms 47 through 51 are all marked mizmor softens the
transition.
Compare also Psalms 65 through 68. Equally important is that
such
overlapping genres do not occur
between books.
In conclusion, then, we may justly
infer that the division into five books
has
not been imposed upon the psalter, but is inherent to
its formation.
23 This is due both to
the way they fit each particular psalm in question and to the non-
formal
agreement between the doxologies themselves. See Niemeyer, Het probleem, 72-78.
Niemeyer
goes on to reject the view that the doxologies function to close the individual
books.
He
notes that "geen enkele
bundel of verzameling in
het O.T. met een doxologie werd
afgesloten" (p. 76).
While this may be, it ought to be noted that there is no other collection
of
songs or psalms in the OT at all! See also
24
IV. Superscripts and Postscripts
The superscripts and postscripts to
the psalms can lay claim to a fair
degree
of antiquity. Not only are they evidenced in MT,
and
Targums, but it ought also to be noted that even by
the time of the
LXX
translation (second or third century BC?) the technical terms con-
tained there were so
antiquated and obscure that the translators had a fair
degree
of trouble interpreting them. This is true also for the Targums.
Furthermore,
we find similar super/postscripts in other parts of Scripture
(cf.
Hab 3:1, 19b; Isa 38:9). There thus seems to be no
reason not to take
the
super/postscripts seriously.
Given that attribution of authorship
seems to play an important role in
the
division of the psalter, it behooves us to investigate
briefly the signifi-
cance of l before personal
names in the superscripts.25 The most obvious
denotation
of lamed before a personal name seems
to be that of authorship
(commonly
called lamed auctoris;
cf. Ges-K 129c). A fairly clear example of
this
in a superscript outside the psalter is Hab 3:1. Within the psalter
itself,
it
seems highly probable that in those cases where dvdl is followed up
by a
historical
superscript placing the psalm in a part of David's life setting,
authorship
is meant. Certainly in Ps 18:1 this is the case (cf. 2 Sam 22:1).
Furthermore,
the NT seems to have taken the lamed
in this way; note
Matt
22:41-45; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44 (Psalm 110); Acts 1:16-17
(Psalm
41); 2:25-34 (Psalms 16 and 110); Rom 4:6-8 (Psalm 32); Rom 11:9f
(Psalm
69); Heb 4:7 (Psalm 95 following LXX).26
Despite all this, it is equally clear
that lamed plus personal name does
not
always
indicate authorship. The phrase Nvtydyl in Ps 39:1, for
instance, must
indicate
something other than authorship, which seems to be indicated by
the
ensuing dvdl. J. Ridderbos argues
with some plausibility that the phrase
here
specifies the choir director more closely.27 The phrase Hrq-ynbl is also
not
so clear. The fact that no other author indication is given in these
superscripts
would seem to suggest authorship. However, Ridderbos,
fol-
lowing
Weiser, on the strength that here no personal name is given, suggests
"belonging
to."28 This meaning seems to me at least possible. With respect
to
the Asaph psalms, Ridderbos
rejects lamed auctoris, but only because he
finds
it difficult to consider some of these psalms as dating from the time of
the
Davidic Asaph.29 This argument is weak. If the authorship of the
Davidic
Asaph is to be
rejected, and the possibility of a later Asaph seems improb-
able,
then the respective titles are probably spurious. The dating of several
Asaph psalms will be
discussed below In conclusion, apart from such cases
25 My discussion here is
deeply indebted to J. Ridderbos, De Psalmen (Commentaar
op
het
Oude Testament; 2 vols.; Kampen: Kok,
1955-58) 1.367-381.
26 For these examples see
ibid., 374.
27 Ibid., 376.
28 Ibid., 376-77.
29 Ibid., 377-78.
THE DIVISION AND
ORDER OF THE PSALMS 227
as
Nvtydyl or Hrq-ynbl, I take lamed plus personal name in the superscripts
to
refer to authorship.
The last problem discussed here, as
far as the superscripts are concerned,
relates
to the so-called historical superscripts. Many of the psalms bearing
these
seem to lack any concrete detailed historical reference confirming the
superscripts
themselves. This problem is, however, more acute in some
instances
than in others. Psalm 51, for example, is widely acknowledged as
portraying
the penitent spirit of one in a position such as David found
himself.30
Psalm 34, on the other hand, has been judged more problematic.
N.
H. Ridderbos has suggested that in such a case the
psalmist may well
have
written or used the psalm in question on the occasion indicated, but
modeled
it according to a well known and generalized form.31 This view,
of
course, also makes the psalms themselves particularly suitable for preser-
vation and continued
use by the covenant people throughout their genera-
tions and different
circumstances of need and praise.
B. S. Childs, however, argues that the
historical titles in no way depend
on
tradition or historical memory. In his view they are the result of mid-
rashic exegesis that
was taking place in the few centuries before Christ.
Childs
bases his working hypothesis here upon evidence related to Psalm
151.
Relying upon Sanders' comparison of LXX Psalm 151 and
Psalm
151, he suggests that the LXX superscript to Psalm 151 must be a
later
addition that fits only the expansive amalgam of two earlier psalms
that
form LXX Psalm 151.32 He continues: "This evidence is
significant not
only
in showing the lack of an independent historical tradition behind the
expansion
of the LXX titles, but also in fixing an approximate date at
which
time Psalm titles were being formed on the basis of internal develop-
ment alone."33
Thus, Childs clearly moves from an argument based on the
superscript
of LXX Psalm 151 to an extrapolation about all the LXX
superscripts,
finally bringing forward a hypothesis on historical psalm super-
scripts
in general. This argumentation is, however, rather weak. In the first
place,
Sanders cogently argues that LXX Psalm 151 is a translation of a
Hebrew
amalgam of Qumran Psalms 151A and 151B.34 Thus, the LXX
translators
probably should not be considered guilty of supplying their own
titles
based on midrashic exegesis. Secondly, we may ask
whether the ac-
tivity behind a
clearly apocryphal psalm composition can be said to reflect
similar
activity behind the canonical psalms. This question receives especial
significance
in view of the fact that the LXX itself places Psalm 151 outside
30 See for example B. S.
Childs, "Psalm Titles," 145.
31 N. H. Ridderbos, Psalmen en cultus (Kampen: Kok, 1950) 20-22. It is also interesting
to
note that E. J. Young (An Introduction to
the Old Testament [2d ed.;
1949]
301) uses this phenomenon to argue that the psalm titles themselves must be
authentic.
How
else can their connection to otherwise unrelated psalms be adequately explained?
32 Sanders, The Psalms Scroll, 56ff.
33 Childs, "Psalm
Titles," 143.
34 Sanders, The Psalms Scroll, 56ff.
228
the
canon.35 Finally, can the supposed literary activity of the LXX be
automatically
predicated of the MT? Childs' view is thus found severely
wanting
in its premises. Nevertheless,
conclusion
that this midrashic work probably "stemmed from
a pietistic
circle
of Jews whose interest was particularly focused on the nurture of the
spiritual
life."36
superscripts
within the psalter is to loosen those psalms from
their original
cultic
context and give them an individual spiritual character that makes
them
appropriate for exemplaric meditation. To me this
seems no more
than
speculation based on a wrong view of the nature of the superscripts
themselves.
If the MT psalter really was intended to provide such
a
"hermeneutical
key" for individual meditation in this way, why is the
phenomenon
of historical superscripts not more common and more orga-
nized? As it is,
these superscripts are spread out over a good portion of the
psalter. In conclusion,
there seems to be no real editorial purpose to either
the
existence or the present distribution of the historical superscripts.
V. Books 1-3
1.
Division of Individual Psalms
Before proceeding to a discussion of
the final arrangement of the five
books
of the psalter itself, we must first briefly examine
the main cases put
forward
for combination and separation of psalms contrary to their present
state
in codex Leningradensis.
that
we need to treat the cases in books 1-3 separately from those in books
4
and 5. His own examination of the candidates for combination here falls
under
a discussion of untitled psalms.37 Having examined these and the
grounds
for their combination with those psalms preceding them, he con-
cludes that the MT
placement of untitled psalms in these books is so as to
deliberately
connect them with the preceding psalm. He argues that in
each
case valid reasons for their combination can be given. It remains for
us
to test this for ourselves case by case.
Psalms 9 and 10 are frequently taken
together as forming one acrostic.
Psalm
10 has no superscript and is joined with Psalm 9 in LXX, Vg, and
a
few Hebrew Mss. Scholars are not unanimous on this union, however.38
35 LXX states: ou$toj o[ yalmo>j i]dio<grafoj ei]j
Dauid dia> e@cwqen tou? a]riqmou?
("This
psalm is a personal writing of David and outside the number").
36 See
id.,
"Reflections on the Modern Study of the Psalms," in Magnalia Dei: The Mighty Acts of God:
Essays on the
Bible and Archaeology in Memory of G. Ernest Wright (ed. F M. Cross
et al.;
Garden
City, NY: Doubleday, 1976) 384.
37 Editing, 173ff.
38 See e.g., N. H. Ridderbos, De Psalmen (Korte verklaring der Heilige Schrift; Kampen:
Kok, 1962) 1.126-27, who follows F Delitzsch, Psalms 1.175-76.
THE DIVISION AND
ORDER OF THE PSALMS 229
This
is mainly because the acrostic no longer seems to be completely pre-
served.
Whilst Psalm 9 probably gives us x to k
(missing
d),
and Psalm 10
begins
appropriately with l the following verses show no evidence of
con-
tinuing the sequence
until v. 6b (p), or possibly not till v. 8b (f) or even
v.
12, where it continues from q to t. It should be
noted, however, that the
number
of missing letters equals the numbers of verses lacking acrostic
beginnings.
In my opinion the remaining evidence of an acrostic cannot be
discounted,
and the original unity of the composition thus seems fairly
evident.
Furthermore, there are several internal indications of unity be-
tween Psalms 9 and
10. Note the use of similar phrases, e.g., tvtfl
hrcb
(9:10;
10:1), and the use of vz with similar
imagery (9:16; 10:2), and compare
9:18-20
with 10:11-12.39 A
distinction between Psalms 9 and 10 has been
observed
in the content. Psalm 9 is characterized as a psalm of thanksgiving,
whilst
Psalm 10 as a supplicatory psalm. Further, Psalm 9 is
said to be
concerned
with enemies from the outside, whereas Psalm 10 with enemies
from
the inside.40 The first distinction does not seem to carry too much
weight
in view of the inner verbal connections. The entreaty of Psalm 10
is
clearly based on the confession of Psalm 9 (which is itself not devoid of
entreaty;
cf. vv. 20-21).41 The nations are mentioned in both psalms as
enemies
(cf. 9:18--21 and 10:16). It is understandable that it is in the suppli-
cation proper that a
more detailed and expanded view of oppression is
given
(i.e. allusion to enemies within).
Wilson, who accepts an originally
unified composition, argues that the
break
in the acrostic pattern at the beginning of Psalm 10 can only be
explained
by assuming that the psalm was early broken into two distinct
compositions/readings.42
He may well be correct in this assumption,
though
to infer a division in readings does not in my opinion necessarily
have
to entail an early division into separate compositions. A tradition of
readings
separating these psalms may well account for the separation of
them
in many Masoretic Mss.
Psalms 32 and 33 are sometimes said to
be a unity.43 Here there is indeed
some
external evidence. A few Masoretic mss apparently
join the two
psalms
together. Furthermore, F. Delitzsch cites an old midrash that
reckons
them together.44 Against this evidence, however, is that of both the
LXX
and
39 See further Delitzsch, Psalms
1.175.
40 Cf. ibid; N. H.
R.idderbos, De Psalmen 1.126-27; and J. Ridderbos,
De Psalmen
1.77f.
41 Note that De Wette classified Psalm 9 as supplicatory
(see J. Ridderbos, De Psalmen 1.78).
42
43 See for example
Psalms
9/10; 32/33; 42/43; and 70/71 as single psalms. On pp. 174-76 he argues not for
an
original
unity but for a secondary unity based on "an early liturgical
function." Although this
helps
to give a clearer authorship pattern, the evidence for this early conjunction
seems to me
very
weak.
44 It also joins Psalm
42 with 43, and 9 with 10. See Delitzsch, Psalms 2.54. Whilst this
evidence
may be significant,
230
but
also attributes the latter to David (i.e. it gives it a separate super-
script).45
Two Qumran fragments contain the order of Psalm 31 followed by
Psalm
33.46 Psalm 32 is thus not
connected. 4QPsq also gives Psalm 33 a
superscript
attributing authorship to David.47 Finally, there is the fact that
there
seems to be no internal connection between the two psalms. The
evidence
of the LXX and
are
the few Masoretic Mss. It is fairly easy to see how,
in copying a collection
of
psalms predominantly separated by superscripts, two psalms not so sepa-
rated
could accidentally (or even perhaps intentionally) be joined. This is
especially
likely in view of the fact that the last verse of Psalm 32 and the
first
verse of Psalm 33 are so similar.48 Thus, contra
tain the separation
of Psalms 32 and 33.
Psalms 42 and 43 are frequently
classed as one psalm. In support of this
union
are many Hebrew MSS and the fact of striking internal unity. Further-
more
Psalm 43, being without any title, is rather out of place by itself in the
midst
of a group of Korahite psalms.
Psalm 42/43 is clearly set in 3
strophes, each ending with the same
refrain,
"How you are in despair, 0 my soul." Psalm 42 contains the first
two
refrains, and Psalm 43 the third and final. This is, however, not the only
connection
between Psalms 42 and 43, for even within the strophes them-
selves
there are many inner verbal connections. This occurs both between
the
first two strophes in our Psalm 42 and between those strophes and the
third
one in what is our Psalm 43. Furthermore the setting is quite clearly
the
same in both. Finally, it is clear that each strophe builds on the pre-
ceding,
up to the third which forms the climax and conclusion of the psalm,
without
which Psalm 42 is sadly stunted.49 The first two present the
position
of
the psalmist far away from the temple urging himself to place his trust
in
God and asking him for deliverance. This plea for deliverance finally
comes
in the third strophe (Psalm 43). Perhaps this distinction between the
first
two and the final strophe (similar to Psalms 9 and 10) led to its division
in
certain Masoretic Mss.
45
"problem"
psalms without superscripts. This seems unlikely in view of (1) the fact that
the
LXX
is not consistent in this respect, as it joins Psalms 9 and 10 and thus shows
no deliberate
methodology;
(2) my argument above on LXX superscripts in general, i.e., that they were
based
on Hebrew originals, and not fabricated by the translators; and (3) the support
of
46 That is, 4QPsa
frgs c and d, and 4QPsq.
47 It reads (column 1): rvmzm ryw
dvdl.
48 This could well have
been an ordering factor in the placing of Psalm 33 after 32 in the
MT
psalter.
49 Thus I do not concur
with N. H. Ridderbos' suggestion that Psalm 43 may
have been
added
later to complete Psalm 42 (De Psalmen 2.13-14). The presence of a superscript for
Psalm
43
in the LXX, however, does suggest that a separation between these two psalms
occurred
early.
THE DIVISION AND ORDER OF THE PSALMS 231
Psalm 71 also stands out in book 2 as
being without a superscript. Here
too,
many Masoretic mss join Psalm 71 with the preceding
psalm. At first
sight
this seems at least possible. As
connections
between the two psalms (cf. 70:2b and 71:12b; 70:3 and 71:1,
13,
24).50 These internal
connections, however, should not be overempha-
sized.
They are not at all on the same level as those between Psalms 42 and
43.
The LXX separates Psalm 71, preserving a superscript for it which
reads:
T&? Dauid: ui[w?n Iwnadab kai>
tw?n prw<twn ai]xmalwtisqe<ntwn.51
The
intriguing reference to the sons of Jonadab (cf.
Jeremiah 35) suggests
that
the (Davidic) psalm was used by them and the first exiles sometime
after
disaster struck in 587 BC. There seems to be no literary connection to
Jeremiah
35, and so this historical superscript probably relies on ancient
tradition.
One
Here
in 4QPsa (frg g) Psalm 71 follows on from
Psalm 38. On balance, then,
the
evidence strongly suggests that Psalm 71 ought to be treated as a psalm
independent
of Psalm 70. Those Masoretic mss joining them
probably did
so
either by accident or to avoid an unseemly exception to the use of super-
scripts
(see the argument above for Psalms 32 and 33).52 The internal
connection
between the two psalms may explain why they were placed next
to
each other in the psalter.
Having examined those psalms sometimes
combined, it is my conclusion
that
although in certain cases good arguments can be made for such com-
bination, there is no
evidence that this should automatically be predicated
of
all psalms in books 1-3 lacking a superscript. Rather, I have argued that
in
certain cases the only reason some MT Mss combine untitled psalms with
the
former is because of that very lack of a title. Such combinations are
therefore
quite secondary. Furthermore, those psalms which ought to be
combined
may well have been so unified before the compilation of our
psalter (cf. the
evidence of LXX). In these cases MT separation may well
have
occurred at some stage in the transmission of the text for a variety
of
reasons (see suggestions above). I therefore reject
that
the placement of untitled psalms in books 1-3 shows obvious edi-
torial concern.53
2.
Arrangement of Books 1-3
Given that Psalms 9 and 10 are a
unity, and that Psalm 33 probably
ought
to have a Davidic superscript (see above), we may quite appropri-
ately characterize
book 1 as a Davidic book. That David was an important
50 Cf.
51 "Of David; of the
sons of Jonadab and the first men taken in
captivity."
52
that
perhaps
wrongly
dismisses LXX evidence as expansive.
55 Editing, 181.
232
and
prolific psalmist is well known (cf. 2 Sam 23:1-2; Amos 6:5). The only
psalms
lacking direct Davidic ascription are Psalms 1 and 2. Given the
overall
Davidic character of this book, these psalms probably also date from
his
period, if not from his hand (cf. Acts 4:25-26). Psalm 1 has often been
seen
as introducing the psalter. It at least forms an
appropriate introduction
to
book 1.
The book itself shows little evidence
of deliberate internal ordered place-
ment. Just over half
the psalms could be characterized as pleas to God for
deliverance,
but these are not set apart as a special group.54 Superscript
phrases
do not indicate any separate groups of psalms either. Occasionally,
elements
in common between adjoining psalms can be noted which may
have
been a factor in their placement together, but this phenomenon is by
no
means great or consistent.55
Book 2 begins with a group of seven
psalms belonging to the sons of
Korah. It seems best
with J. Ridderbos and F Delitzsch
to understand by
"the
sons of Korah" the well-known group appointed
over the service of
worship
by David.56 The sons of Korah survived the judgment of Num-
bers 16 (see Num
26:11). They were gatekeepers from Moses to David
(1
Chr 9:19; 26:1-19). This seems to fit Ps 84:11. They
had become re-
nowned in helping
David (1 Chr 12:6), and were appointed over the
service
of
worship (1 Chr 6:31-32; 25). 2 Chr 20:19, in the
time of Jehoshaphat,
seems
to be the last time they are heard of. However, Psalm 87, with the
mention
of
N.
H. Ridderbos assumes that the sons of Korah did return after the exile
since
"the sons of the gatekeepers" are mentioned as such (Ezek 2:42 et
al.
).57 This seems likely. Note that Heman
the singer in the time of David
stemmed
from Korah (through Abiasaph,
1 Chronicles 6). So it seems some
of
the sons of Korah were gatekeepers, and some (through
Heman?) were
singers
(ergo 2 Chr
20:19). Asaph the singer stemmed from Gershon
(through
Libni). The sons of Heman
and Asaph together are identified as
singers
(1 Chr 6:33-48; 2 Chr
5:12). The sons of Asaph are sometimes
identified
as the singers (Ezra 2:41; 3:10-11; Neh 7:44; 11:17, 22;
and per-
haps
12:46). But this designation does not necessarily seem to exclude the
Korahite line of Heman (2 Chr 35:15). Given that
the sons of Korah are
never
referred to by name in Ezra/Nehemia, but only as
"the gatekeep-
ers," it may not be out of
place to understand singers from their line being
subsumed
under "the sons of Asaph." Is this because
the name of Korah
still
had bad connotations? Or perhaps the sons of Asaph
gradually became
54 By my count (without
going into detailed exegesis), there are 21 such pleas out of a
total
of 40 psalms.
55 Niemeyer has
criticized Delitzsch in this respect for going much
too far (Het probleem,
126-28).
Possible examples of common elements include Ps 3:6-7 and Ps 4:9; Ps 34:8 and
Ps
35:5ff.
(hvhy
jxlm).
56 J. Ridderbos, De Psalmen 2.9;
Delitzsch, Psalms
2.52.
57 De Psalmen 2.5.
THE DIVISION AND ORDER OF THE PSALMS 233
dominant
in this respect, their name therefore becoming the title under
which
the others were also assumed.
None of the seven psalms of Korah gathered here in book 2 seems to
demand
a late date. In this respect Psalm 44 should be placed in the time
of
the war with
Psalm
60 that this was a bloody war.58 Psalm 44 is closely related to
Psalm
60, the superscript of which also places it at this time (cf. Ps 44:10
with
Ps 60:12). Evidently, several captives were taken and sold into slavery.
The
mention of such sale (v. 13), and the fact that the psalmist claims
innocency for the people
of God (vv. 18ff.), both argue against an exilic date
for
this psalm.
The remaining psalms in this book also
date from Davidic or Solomonic
times.
Changes of authorship within the book are smoothed over by genre
groupings.59
Once again there are occasional indications of similarity be-
tween adjoining
psalms suggesting a rationale for their placement, but the
phenomenon
is not widespread.60
matic unity among
Psalms 65-68 which helps bridge the gap in authorship
contained
in Psalms 66 and 67.61 He suggests that whilst many psalms on
either
side of this group are prayers for deliverance, these psalms are all
songs
of praise. This point seems sustainable. We might also note that in
contrast
to the psalms on either side, all four in question contain the title
ryw. In addition to this connection, however, it
does not seem to me out of
place
to suggest a further link between these psalms. Psalm 65 closes with
the
pastures and valleys shouting for joy and singing. This is immediately
taken
up in Psalm 66 where all the earth is urged to shout joyfully to God
and
sing the glory of his name. Both psalms are also connected by the
mention
of the paying (Mlw) of the vow (rdn). In the final section of this
psalm
(vv. 16-.20), the psalmist implores the godly to come and hear him
tell
of what God has done for his life. Thus, Psalm 67 gives the priestly
benediction
and summons the peoples to praise God that his way may be
known.
Psalm 68 follows this up with a recounting of what God has done.
The final psalm of the book ends with
a suitable doxology, as noted
above.
One very interesting item, however, is the line underneath this, "the
prayers
of David, son of Jesse are ended" (Ps 72:20). Possibly tvlpt here
should
be read with LXX (u!mnoi) as tvlht. Striking is the fact that this
occurs
at the end of a psalm of Solomon! Evidently the line is to be taken
58 J. Ridderbos
(De Psalmen
2.22-23) rejects the relevancy of 1 Kgs 11:15 by stating
that
it
is "zeer dubieus."
This seems to me a very questionable argument, for the text can very well
be
maintained (cf. NASB), not to mention the evidence of the superscript to Psalm 60
together
with
the contents of that psalm.
59 That is, where adjacent
psalms have different authors, they invariably belong to the
same
designated genre.
60 Psalms 56 and 57, for
instance, both begin Myhlx
ynnH, whilst Psalms 57-59 all contain tHwt-lx in their
superscripts.
61 Editing, 190-91.
234
in
a general sense.62 It may just refer to book 2, but likely refers to
both
books
1 and 2. Given that Davidic psalms occur in all the remaining books,
it
suggests that books 1 and 2 were completed at an earlier point in history
than
books 3-5. There seems to be no reason to date their compilation any
later
than the beginning of Solomon's reign. This would fit with the general
organizational
activity around the building and equipping of the temple at
that
time. However, it is also possible that they were compiled by the men
of
Hezekiah together with the Asaph psalms (see below).
Books 1 and 2 as two collections,
probably compiled around the same
time,
supplement each other quite nicely. Book 1 is a collection of psalms
favoring
the divine name Yahweh, whilst book 2
favors Elohim.63 Of
interest
is
the fact that there are several instances of textual relation between psalms
in
book 1 and book 2. First, Psalm 14 of book 1 is textually related to
Psalm
53 of book 2. Here we see an example of how similar psalm material
could
be reworked at a different time for a different situation. In accor-
dance
with the preference of the respective books, each psalm addresses
God
with the different titles. Further, Niemeyer has shown that other
tual differences
between the two psalms should not be attributed to textual
corruption,
but may well indicate a reworking for a different occasion.64
Secondly,
Psalm 70 is clearly related to Ps 40:14-18. Again there is no need
to
harmonize the slight differences here. A portion of psalm material has
been
used on a different occasion in a different setting. Finally, it is inter-
esting to note the
relation between Ps 31:2-4a and Ps 71:1-3.65 It is note-
worthy
that all these cases occur with psalms of Davidic authorship (note
that
Psalm 71 has Davidic ascription from LXX). The only other case of
intertextual relation in the
psalter is also Davidic. Psalm 108 is related to
Ps
57:8-12 and Ps 60:7-14. It is not surprising that a prolific author such
as
David should rework his materials from time to time. It is significant that
no
two examples of such reworking of the same textual material can be
found
in any one book of the psalter.
Thus we turn to book 3. The first
section of book 3 is made up of a
collection
of psalms of Asaph. This collection is set off from
the other psalms
62 In view of my comments
above on lamed auctoris,
however, and the relation of this
phrase
to the superscripts, the 5 here ought still to be taken as marking authorship
(contra
Niemeyer, Het probleem,
94).
63 N. H. Ridderbos (De Psalmen 2.13) argues that in many cases Yahweh has been
supplanted
by Elohim in book 2. The reason is no longer known,
but he suggests that maybe at a
certain
time, in "een bepaalde
kring van
to
me a little speculative. The distinction may be no more than stylistic; see
also Niemeyer, Het
probleem, 90-93.
64 Het probleem, 82-85.
65 Psalm 86 is also
sometimes said to be heavily dependent on other sources (see for
example
Childs, "Reflections," 382). Most of the psalm, however, is readily
explained merely by
allusion
to common poetic phrases. The allusion to such a common, important, and well
known
phrase as Exod 34:6 in v. 15 is not unexpected. Apart
from that the only other probable
allusions
seem to be from Ps 54:5 (v. 14), 25:1 (v. 4b), and Exod
15:11 (v. 8a).
THE DIVISION AND
ORDER OF THE PSALMS 235
in
this book in a number of ways. First, the rest of the psalms of book 3 show
no
evidence of deliberate arrangement, by author or otherwise. Second, the
psalms
of Asaph are all characterized by their preference
for Elohim.
The
ensuing
psalms show a preference for Yahweh.
Third, the psalms of Asaph
appear
to bear a number of other characteristics in common. These are
enumerated
by Niemeyer as follows: (1) the preference for lx and Nvylf;
(2)
God called or summoned as judge; (3) interjections of God speaking;
(4)
the use of the image of shepherd and sheep to signify God's relation to
his
people; (5) mention of Joseph and the tribes stemming from him
(Ephraim
and Manasseh); (6) allusions to ancient history; (7) a common
base
of vocabulary.66
All this strongly suggests not only
that these eleven psalms originally
formed
a separate unit together, but also that they come from the hand of
the
same psalmist. It is my contention that we should see here the hand of
the
Davidic Asaph (see above under discussion of lamed auctoris).
Asaph was
a
chief among the singers appointed under David (1 Chr
15:16ff.; 16:4-7, 37;
25:1ff.).
Asaph as such functioned as xybinA, (cf. 1 Chr
25:1-2) and in that
capacity
appears to have been an important author of psalms (cf. 2 Chr
29:30).
That
xbn in 1 Chr 25:1-2 must be seen in the technical prophetic sense is
clear
from 2 Chr 20:14ff.
In objection to the Davidic Asaph's authorship of these eleven psalms,
many
have turned to internal considerations manifested in Psalms 74, 79
and
83 in particular. Among the Asaphite psalms, 74 and
79 are often said
to
be exilic, if not Maccabean.67 A careful examination of these
psalms,
however,
reveals that this may not necessarily be the case. Nowhere in these
psalms
is there any mention of an exile. I submit that it is possible that these
psalms
date around 926/925 BC when Shoshenq invaded
We
learn from the biblical account (1 Kgs 14:25-28; 2 Chr 12:1-12) that,
in
the fifth year of Rehoboam, he attacked
horsemen,
capturing the fortified cities Rehoboam had built (2 Chr 11:5-
12).
He finally came as far as
bled
themselves, was spared a little (Ffmk 2 Chr 12:7). Yet Shoshenq did
enter
of
events he then went on to attack and ravage Israel.69
66 See Het probleem,
65-66, for details.
67 See J. Ridderbos (De Psalmen 2.252-54, 303-4), who rejects a Maccabean date. J. A.
Goldstein's
theory that Alcimus was the author of Psalm 79 places
the psalm far too late
(I Maccabees
[AB 41; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1976] 332ff.). Aside from the objections of
Ridderbos to a Maccabean date (2.252-54), it should be noted that if the
psalm is this late,
it
is impossible to explain the wrong authorship title known from LXX and MT Mss. Delitzsch
also
places these psalms in Maccabean times (Psalms
2.325-28).
68 The concentration on
the taking away of the golden shields in the historical accounts
seems
designed to indicate the loss of Davidic glory (cf. 2 Sam 8:7).
69 Hence the reference to
Jacob in Ps 79:7. See E. H. Merrill,
History of Old
Testament
Psalm 74 seems to have been written
shortly after the looting of the
temple
and possibly while Shoshenq was still attacking
asks
how long the Lord will continue to reject his people. We learn that in
looting
the
Asaph, as we would expect,
takes a cultic view of Shoshenq's destruction of
Lev
23:2) in the land.
In Psalm 79 Asaph
again bemourns the defilement of the temple. It is
noteworthy
that he here speaks of nations (pl.). That Shoshenq
employed
soldiers
from other nations is confirmed by the biblical account (cf.
2
Chr 12:3). Similar themes to Psalm 74 sound forth
here. In v. 8 Asaph
asks
that Yahweh not remember the iniquities of the chiefs (so Mynwxr, not
"forefathers"
here) which brought about this invasion (cf. 2 Chr
12:1-2).71
There
is also an echo of Ps 44:14 in v. 4. Psalm 44 would have been well
remembered
by Asaph if, as argued, it dates to his lifetime (see
above and
below).
If this interpretation is correct,
then the author of these two psalms may
well
be the Asaph of Davidic times. Assuming he was around
twenty years
of
age at his appointment to temple service (cf. 1 Chr
16:4-5), and that this
took
place in about 977 BC,72 then Asaph would
have been about 71 at the
time
of Shoshenq's invasion.
Psalm 83 is at once more and less of a
problem. According to J. Ridderbos
it
has been dated all the way back as far as Saul, and as late as Maccabean
times,
with many suggestions in between.73 The difficulty in dating the
psalm
results from the mention in it of places or peoples both ancient and
more
recent (e.g., Amalek and
Asaph does not seem
impossible.
Given, then, that the eleven Asaph psalms of book 3 date no later than
Rehoboam's reign, it would
seem possible that this collection was produced
by
the men of Hezekiah. Hezekiah's reign was one of great religious reform.
Within
that reform was an evident concern to gather and preserve impor-
tant material
(revelation) from the Davidic and Solomonic period
(cf.
70 Note that in v. 3 tvxwml should be read in conjunction with tvxvwml of Ps 73:18 as
"deception"
and not "ruin"; cf.
Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971) 218, and LXX, which translates e]pi> ta>j u[perh-
fani<aj. Perhaps Shoshenq deceived the priests, gaining entry for spoil, and
then proceeded
to
wreck the sanctuary.
71 In v. 1 the word yf occurs. This word only appears four times in the OT
and is usually
taken
to mean "ruin" (Jer 26:18; Mic 1:6; 3:12; Ps 79:1). However, it is notable that the
LXX
in
every case translates with on o]pwrofula<kion,
that is, the "hut of a garden watcher" (see LSJ,
s.v.). Thus at least three
(presumably) different translators at (presumably) different times
interpreted
yf as a synonym of hnvlm. Such consistency is striking and suggests that
this could
possibly
be a meaning closer to ancient Hebrew usage. Psalm 79 therefore may not imply a
destruction
of the city of
72 See Merrill, Kingdom, 244.
73 De Psalmen 2.330f.
THE DIVISION AND
ORDER OF THE PSALMS 237
Prov 25:1).74 Hezekiah's
concern for purity of worship even extended to the
words
to be used in the temple service, for in 2 Chr 29:30
he and the officials
(MryWh) ordered the Levites to praise Yahweh specifically
with the words of
David
and Asaph the Seer (hzHh
Jsxv dyvd yrbdb).
This seems to imply that
some
sort of gathering work had gone on to provide the suitable texts.
Possibly
the collections of books 1 and 2 also came about at this time.
Ps
137:3 could well imply the existence in pre-exilic times of such a col-
lection
of songs. Here in exile, captors demand that some of the temple
musicians
sing Nvyc
rywm. ryw here appears to
be collective with partitive Nm.
Could
this have been a technical term for a canonical collection?
The rest of book 3 exhibits no
evidence of any earlier collection. Psalm 89
clearly
shows that a date sometime in the exile or thereafter is demanded
for
the book as a whole.
VI. Books 4-5
1.
Division of Individual Psalms
When we turn to books 4 and 5 the
situation is at once more confused and
more
clear. There is here a much lower number of superscripts in general.
At
the same time several Hebrew manuscripts combine quite a number of
psalms,
especially between 90 and 99, and 114 and 119. These combinations
are
often awkward and in nearly every case almost certainly secondary.75
I
shall discuss only two cases of alternate division where the evidence seems
highly
significant.
In the first place there is much
evidence that Psalms 114 and 115 were
originally
combined. Many Masoretic (Hebrew) Mss combine them
(including
codex
Leningradensis),76 as well as 4QPs°, LXX, Theodotion, Syriac, and
Jerome.
Although internal evidence is not decisive, the praise of God and
ridicule
of idols in Psalm 115 does flow well from the confession of deliverance
of
In the second place, as noted above,
Psalm 147 is divided into two psalms
in
the LXX. This psalm does easily fall into two sections that may have
been
two independent psalms (vv. 1-11 and 12-20); however, there are no
Hebrew
mss extant supporting this division. Thus the separation in two
must
remain no more than a possibility.
2.
Arrangement of Books 4-5
Book 4 begins again, as I have noted,
with a change of authorship to help
mark
the boundary line. Psalm 90 is thus a psalm of Moses. There appears
74 Of interest is t. B. Bat. 15a: "Hezekiah and his
company wrote [btk] Isaiah,
Proverbs,
the
Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes." The verb btk here obviously
signifies some kind of
copying
or editorial work. The passage is cited in Young, Introduction, 202.
75 For a discussion of
some of these cases see
76
(Editing, 179).
238
to
be quite some significance to placing the psalm of Moses at the beginning
of
this book, as his name appears no less than six times in book 4 (Ps 90:1;
99:6;
103:7; 105:26; 106:16, 23, 32). Outside of these instances the name of
Moses
appears only once in the psalter (Ps 77:21).
The ensuing nine psalms seem to form a
deliberate block introduced by
Psalm
91. This block is interesting for several reasons. First, only Psalm 92
has
a superscript in MT, but the LXX shows that there were also super-
scripts
for each one of these psalms. Second, many of these psalms have been
reckoned
among a modern genre called Yahweh malak psalms. Although the
classification
of this genre has been shown to be complex, modern study has
drawn
attention to the similarity in content within this set of psalms.77
Psalms 92-99 all contain the theme of
God's kingship and enthronement.
Besides
this they have many other thematic elements in common (e.g.,
holiness
of God, singing Yahweh's praise, etc.). An examination of them
reveals
that together they celebrate Yahweh's victory in conquest over enemies
and
thus his continuing rule.78 Several of them are given historical
super-
scripts
by the LXX. These reinforce the idea that they are victory psalms.
Psalm 93, for instance, has the LXX
superscript: ei]j th>n h[me<ran tou?
prosabba<tou, o!te
kat&<kistai h[ gh?: ai#noj &]dh?j t&? Dauid.79 Delitzsch
interprets
this in line with a Talmudic tradition indicating the sixth day of
creation.80
The Talmud refers the second phrase to
the populating of the
earth
on the fifth day. This seems unlikely in view of the similar superscript
to
Psalm 97, which is a clear reference to monarchial land in the kingdom
of
victory
in the conquering and settling of land under David. The theme of
victory
in conquest is a common factor in all the so-called Yahweh malak
psalms.
Yahweh is celebrated again as king after the victory. There are
several
military associations in the psalm. A study of the expression "to gird
oneself
with strength" shows clearly that this is battle terminology (cf.
1
Sam 2:4; 2 Sam 22:40; Ps 18:33, 40; 65:7; Isa 8:9). Delitzsch
argues
further
that the rivers that are lifted up represent the mighty rivers of the
surrounding
nations.'' However, Yahweh is more mighty than they (v. 4).
Psalm 96 is also considered a Yahweh malak
psalm (cf. v. 10). Here too a
military
victory seems to be celebrated. The reference to singing a new song
usually
indicates the desire to celebrate a new victory attained through the
77 For complexity, see J.
D. W. Watts, "Yahweh Malak Psalms," TZ 21 (1965) 341-48.
The
results of
subjective
nature of attributing psalms to this so-called genre. For similarity, see
Editing, 177ff.
78 It is interesting to
note that a further example of this genre (?) appears in Isa 42:10-13.
Again
here all the common themes are present.
79 "For the day
before the sabbath, when the earth/land was settled;
a song of praise of
David."
80 Delitzsch,
Psalms 3.74. The reference is to Ros Has. 31a. See also Briggs, Psalms 2.299.
81 Delitzsch,
Psalms 3.75-76.
THE DIVISION AND
ORDER OF THE PSALMS 239
help
of Yahweh. Deliverance from enemies is indicated (v. 2) and again
victory
over their gods is celebrated.82
Of interest is the fact that Psalm 97,
being like Psalm 93 a so-called
Yahweh malak psalm, also has a LXX superscript relating to the
land.
It
reads: t&? Dauid,
o!te h[ gh? au]tou? kaqi<statai.83 A
similar occasion to
Psalm
93 seems to be the background here. Yahweh's enemies have been
routed
and have seen his glorious victory (v. 3, 6). The defeated are taunted
for
their worship of idols (false gods) in the wake of the victory of the now
exalted
Yahweh (vv. 7-9). Vv. 10-12 form a parenetic
conclusion that bases
itself
on the demonstrated faithfulness of Yahweh in preserving and
delivering
his people.
Many of the psalms from this group
(i.e. 91-99) are ascribed to David by
the
LXX (Psalms 91, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99).84 These psalms
themselves
bear
no indication that Davidic authorship is unlikely. In fact, Psalm 99
seems
to offer positive internal evidence of this period by its constant allu-
sion to the ark of
the covenant.85 The ark is seldom heard of after the
division
of the kingdom (but cf. Jer 3:16; 2 Chr 35:3). The fact that this is
a
victory psalm after battle argues for David's and not Solomon's reign (cf.
1
Chr 28:3). That the ark was used by David to
symbolize Yahweh's pres-
ence in battle seems
clear from 2 Sam 11:11 (cf. Num 10:35-36).86 In
conclusion,
it seems likely (given both internal similarities and LXX
authorship
ascriptions) that all the victory psalms given here date from
the
time of David.
It is tempting to see this series of
victory psalms as an answer to the
questioning
contained in the last psalm of book 3. There in the wake of the
destruction
of the kingdom and capitulation of the Davidic king, the psalmist
cries
to Yahweh to remember his covenant with David. Whilst this con-
nection is possible,
and has indeed been argued,87 it seems to me rather
doubtful.
As already argued, book 4 is considerably later than book 3, and,
in
addition, Psalm 90 does not immediately answer the question anyway,
but
contains a plea for the Lord's return itself (though not based on the
covenant
specifically).
82 For an interpretation
of the LXX superscript see n. 18 above.
83 "Of David., when
his land is established."
84 With regard to Psalm
95, cf. Heb 4:7. With regard to Psalm 96, the parallel in 1 Chr
16:23ff.
indicates that this psalm probably also dates from this period.
85 E.g., v. Mybvrk bwy (cf.
1 Sam 4:4; 1 Chr 13:6); v. 4 jlm zf (cf. Ps 132:8;
78:61; 2
Chr 6:41); v. 5 vylgr Mdh (cf. 1 Chr 28:2); v.7 vytdf
(cf.
Exod 25:22); note also the fact that
the
ark contained the tdfh
tHl (cf. Exod 31:18; Deut
10:5).
86 M. H. Woudstra has attempted to circumvent the prima facie
interpretation of 2 Sam
11:11
(The Ark of the Covenant from Conquest to
Kingship [International Library of Philosohy
and
Theology: Biblical and Theological Studies;
119-21).
However, I am not yet convinced that the passage does not imply that the ark
was
out
with the military. See C. J. Goslinga, Het Tweede Boek Samuel (Commentaar op
het Oude
Testament;
Kampen: Kok, 1962) 206.
87 Cf.
240
The last section of book 4 contains a
number of psalms of praise often
called
Halleluyah
psalms after their characteristic first and last lines. Strictly
speaking,
Psalms 105 and 106 fall into this category. However, Psalms 103
and
104 also seem to be related. In the first place, the latter two are
connected
by their common beginnings and endings (hvhy-tx
ywpn vkrb).
Psalm
104 also connects to Psalms 105 and 106 by its concluding hy-vllh.
It
may be that Psalms 103 through 106 are intended to be the answer to
Ps
102:19ff., especially 19b: hy-llhy
xrbn Mfv.
The boundary between book 4 and book 5
is much more fluid than any
other.
There is no authorship change here; in fact, both the last psalm of
book
4 and the first psalm of book 5 lack any superscript. Furthermore,
Psalm
107 seems to be closely related to the preceding by its opening verse.
of
a new section after a group of Halleluyah psalms.88 Whilst it is noteworthy
that
such a Todah
psalm does frequently close a group of Halleluyah psalms,
the
suggestion that it begins a new section seems to me a little far fetched.
The
only real ground for it is the placement of Psalm 107 at the beginning
of
book 5. Is not Psalm 105 a Todah psalm? Do Psalms 118 and 136 really
begin
a new (sub)section?
A related grouping to Psalms 103-107
is 111-118, however, this does not
seem
to follow on from any specific suggestion in the previous psalm. The
final
Halleluyah
group (Psalms 146-150) does, however, seem to follow from
Ps
145:21, the last of a series of Davidic psalms (138-145).89 The only
definite
grouping of psalms that may have had a previous history as a
collection
would appear to be the psalms of ascents, usually taken as a
group
of pilgrimage psalms.90 For the rest, apart from sporadic
indications
of
relation here and there, book 5 does not bear any signs of deliberate
organization.
The fact of the fluidity between books
4 and 5, and the common use of
a
group of Halleluyah
psalms to answer to a previous psalm, would seem to
indicate
that the two books were compiled together. Psalm 137 provides a
terminus a quo in the exile;
however, the distinction between books 1-3 and
4-5
in the mss tradition noted above in the section on "evidence" would
seem
to indicate a later date.91 Possibly these books were compiled
during
88 Ibid., 187-90.
89 See Wilson, who aptly
remarks: "In this context, Psalm 146 . . . represents the response
of
David himself to the first half of 145:21. In 147
12,
19-20). The infectious praise spreads ever further in Psalm 148 where the
angelic hosts and
the
creation break forth into song (vv. 2-3, 11-12). In 149, focus returns to the
people of
YHWH
as
150,
we hear the great hymnic answer to the second half of
145:21, toward which the whole
hallel has been
building" (Editing, 194). Cf. Niemeyer, Het probleem, 154.
90 Niemeyer has shown
that these also exhibit an inner connection (Het probleem, 59ff.).
91 Of interest is that
Magnes, 1966]), whose
THE DIVISION AND
ORDER OF THE PSALMS 241
the
time of the literary work done by Nehemia, who also
appears to have
amassed
a considerable library (2 Macc 2:13).92
The number of Davidic
psalms
in books 4 and 5 shows that there was still a considerable number
of
psalms preserved from pre-exilic times.93
VII. Conclusion
In summation we have seen that the
division of the psalter into five books
is
indeed not only warranted, but gives evidence of a historical develop-
ment of compilation
over the ages since the times of Hezekiah or earlier.
This
work of compilation into known and well used canonical collections
was
probably completed only after the exile, perhaps in the time of Nehemia.
Whilst
there are indications of internal ordering here and there, there
appears
to be no systematic attempt to structure the psalter
internally.
Given
the historical development of compilation, the old interpretation of
midrash tehillim (on Ps 1:5)
that the five books reflect the five books of Moses
is
probably no more than a late reflection.94 The Sitz im Leben of
this long
process
of compilation appears to have been the need to furnish recognized
collections
for use in the temple liturgy (cf. the connection to the liturgical
reforms
of Hezekiah, 2 Chr 29:30, and the implications of Ps
137:3).95 The
psalter thus remains
for us today as the church's prophetic songbook, teaching
her
in inspired words of the greatness of her God, his wonderful deeds of
salvation,
and his faithfulness to his covenant promises. It enables the
church
to give back to God her prophetic response of praise that is his due.
Oegstgeesterweg 23
2231
AR, Rijnsburg
The
studies
have concluded that "the ten post-exilic Masoretic
pss [by his standards] are all in the
last
third of the psalter."
92 The song of praise in
1 Chr 16 has often been used as proof that books 1-4
of the
psalter were already in
existence when Chronicles was written (see, for example, P. Skehan,
"
(Bibliotheca
Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 46;
1978)
167-68, cited in
over
portions of Psalms 96, 105, and 106. In light of my comments above on
duplication in the
psalms,
such an argument does not hold any weight. The composition in 1 Chronicles 16
could
easily
be very ancient, even Davidic (recall that all examples of duplication in the psalter occur in
Davidic
psalms).
93 Compare 11QPsa
"David's Compositions," which lists a total of 4,050 songs of David
itemized
according to genre. These may no longer have existed in the time of
list
does show that there was probably once a considerable library of them.
94 The midrash itself is dated from the ninth century or later;
cf. Hippolytus (d. 235), On
the Psalms, preface, for a
similar view.
95 Thus I reject
counter
both to its historical development and to its purpose.
his
notion of the purpose of the psalter by saying,
"this is a collection to be read rather than
performed."
If anything, I would conclude the opposite, though of course the reading of the
psalms
is also highly profitable!
:
Chestnut
Hill
|| Pope Shenouda || Father Matta || Bishop Mattaous || Fr. Tadros Malaty || Bishop Moussa || Bishop Alexander || Habib Gerguis || Bishop Angealos || Metropolitan Bishoy ||
|| The Orthodox Faith (Dogma) || Family and Youth || Sermons || Bible Study || Devotional || Spirituals || Fasts & Feasts || Coptics || Religious Education || Monasticism || Seasons || Missiology || Ethics || Ecumenical Relations || Church Music || Pentecost || Miscellaneous || Saints || Church History || Pope Shenouda || Patrology || Canon Law || Lent || Pastoral Theology || Father Matta || Bibles || Iconography || Liturgics || Orthodox Biblical topics || Orthodox articles || St Chrysostom ||
|| Bible Study || Biblical topics || Bibles || Orthodox Bible Study || Coptic Bible Study || King James Version || New King James Version || Scripture Nuggets || Index of the Parables and Metaphors of Jesus || Index of the Miracles of Jesus || Index of Doctrines || Index of Charts || Index of Maps || Index of Topical Essays || Index of Word Studies || Colored Maps || Index of Biblical names Notes || Old Testament activities for Sunday School kids || New Testament activities for Sunday School kids || Bible Illustrations || Bible short notes|| Pope Shenouda || Father Matta || Bishop Mattaous || Fr. Tadros Malaty || Bishop Moussa || Bishop Alexander || Habib Gerguis || Bishop Angealos || Metropolitan Bishoy ||
|| Prayer of the First Hour || Third Hour || Sixth Hour || Ninth Hour || Vespers (Eleventh Hour) || Compline (Twelfth Hour) || The First Watch of the midnight prayers || The Second Watch of the midnight prayers || The Third Watch of the midnight prayers || The Prayer of the Veil || Various Prayers from the Agbia || Synaxarium