any poetical works of his. Is it not most probable that he was aiming to educate his disciples likewise for the prophetic office? Now it is true, that the Hebrews drew no accurate line of distinction between lyric poetry and prophetic eloquence; yet these two always differ, particularly in the mode of delivery; for the lyric poem was probably sung, while the prophetic message was only recited. Supposing then Samuel was employed in forming his disciples to be prophetic poets or speakers, what is more natural than to imagine that some of them might feel drawn by genius and inclination to lyric poetry, and succeed in perfecting themselves in this?-Yet it lay out of the plan of the prophetic school, and was a thing quite accidental. It is hardly correct, therefore, to consider the prophetic school of Samuel simply as an institution for the cultivation of singing and poetry.3

There were other institutions which may have had an influence still more important and decided, than this school of the prophets, in promoting the culture of lyric poetry, especially of the religious kind. I refer particularly to those musical schools which according to the account 1 Chron. 15: 16 sq. were founded by David in aid of the public worship; yet I cannot retract the unfavourable opinion I once pronounced upon these and similar narratives in the Chronicles; I must rather confirm it. Besides the reasons there alleged, which I may not repeat, it seems to me to be a circumstance particularly calculated to excite suspicion, that the Psalms and fragments of Psalms, represented by the Chronicles to have been sung at the dedication of the tabernacle and on similar occasions, can hardly have been penned by David, but belong rather to the later and less

1 Nachtigall ascribes to Samuel, Psalms 90. 19: 8—15. 103: 1–18. 145, but without foundation. Uebersetz. d. Psalm. p. 67.

2 Respecting the design of Samuel's school of the prophets, learned men differ. Eichhorn considers it to have been merely a work of accident and inclination. Rosenmueller on the other hand regards it as an institution for national culture, and compares Samuel in this respect with Orpheus. Nachtigall views it as a political institution.

3 Ernst Gottlob Bengel (Dissert. ad introductiones in librum Psalmorum supplementa quaedam. Tub. 1806. p. 5) brings a number of good arguments against this hypothesis, particularly in the shape in which Nachtigall presents it, and although he does not wholly reject it, yet insists upon great modifications.

4 See the author's Beyträge zur Einleit. ins A. T. I. B. p. 85 sq.

pure style of the temple poetry. The Psalm which is sung 1 Chron. 16: 8 sq. is composed of Ps. 105 and 96. But both are productions of a later style, as we shall endeavour to show. If the Chronicles had presented us on this occasion with a genuine song of David, such as the elegy for which we are indebted to 2 Samuel c. 1, this circumstance would have contributed not a little to add weight to its authority; but the insertion of these fragments throws suspicion over the whole of the accompanying narrative. The phrase also, quoted 1 Chron. 16: 41, and elsewhere, respecting the Levites who were appointed to give thanks to the Lord, "because his mercy endureth forever," betrays the later poetry of the temple, an example of which we have in Ps. 136, where this phrase forms a regular refrain. Also Psalms 106, 107, and 118, in which this phrase occurs, appear to belong to a later style of poetry.

We may imagine that a master like David would not be without companions and assistants in the poetic art; and in fact, several of David's contemporaries are named in the titles as composers of Psalms; but these notices, as we shall see, are not always good authority. Solomon, according to the testimony of history, united in himself such richness of lyric invention with the sententious style peculiar to him, that in his time lyric poetry must have attained to a very high degree of perfection. Solomon spake three thousand proverbs, and his songs were a thousand and five;' 1 K. 4: 32. It is singular, however, that with the exception of two which are quite uncertain, no Psalms of Solomon are preserved in our present collection. Nor do we find any Psalm with the author's name belonging to the period after Solomon; not even one which admits of being referred with certainty and of necessity to any particular event in the history of those times; and yet such lyric poems as those of Hezekiah and of Habakkuk clearly evince, that during this period the culture of lyric composition had by no means fallen into neglect. On the contrary, we have many Psalms, which, according to the results of a sound critical exegesis almost universally acknowledged, must be placed in the times of the captivity, and after the captivity;2

1 Ps. 46, 48, are referred, it is true, to the siege of Jerusalem by Sennacherib, or to the war of Jehoshaphat; but only from conjec

ture.

2 The supposition that some of the Psalms might belong to the

and these Psalms rank, for purity of language, and for sublimity, beauty, and freshness of conception, in the highest class, and are, in no respect, inferior to the poems of David and his contemporaries, e. g. Ps. 45, 74, 79, 107, and many if not all of the Psalms of Degrees. We are here presented, then, with a singular phenomenon. The lyric poetry of the Hebrews, which was cultivated and brought to perfection in the times of David, after producing abundance of fruit, sunk into a repose of nearly five hundred years, and then all at once, in the most calamitous period of the state, arose again, survived another golden age, and yielded a second harvest ;-a phenomenon hardly corresponding with the common course of events.1 The singularity, however, disappears, as soon as we suppose that the collection of Psalms contains several pieces, either anonymous or incorrectly named, which belong to the period extending from David to the captivity. Indeed, it is in the highest degree probable that lyric composition flourished side by side with the prophetic poetry, and that many of the prophets themselves contributed to our present collection, and might reclaim their own productions from David and others. Some of the prophets, too, are actually named by the Septuagint as authors of Psalms.

III. Authors of the Psalms.

The opinion of the Talmud, of many of the fathers,3 and even of the moderns, as Bartolocci and others, that David was the author of all the Psalms, is contradicted by the very titles, which give the names of several authors of Psalms. Augustine

Maccabean age, to which we were once inclined, is contradicted by the probable history of the Old Testament canon, which would be completed, according to that supposition, at too late a period. See Hassler de Psalmis Maccabaicis, P. I. Ulm. 1827. 4.

1 Bengel 1. c. p. 16, who ascribes several of the Psalms to the Maccabean age, accounts for so late a revival of lyric poetry from the religious enthusiam of that time. That a loftier spirit animated this period, he appositely proves from the example of Sirach, to whom he attributes the spirit of David, and whose chap. 36 he justly compares with Ps. 74, 76, 80, 83.

2 Cod. Pesachim c. 10. f. 117.

3 Augustinus de civit. Dei XVII. 14. Chrysostom. in Proleg. ad Psalm. Euthym. Zigab. Praef. in Psalm. p. 172.

understands these names as referring, not to the authors, but to the individuals whom David, in composing the Psalms, prophetically represented; and the Talmud, in another passage,' says: David wrote the Psalms by tradition from, or in the succession or after the manner of, (by comp. Ezra 3: 10,) Moses, Heman, Jeduthun, Asaph, the children of Korah, and others still earlier, even Adam himself. But Jerome,3 and AbenEzra, considered those persons as the authors, whose names are found in the titles. It has nevertheless been doubted, whether the designation 777,, as it appears in the titles, ought to be understood as really denoting authorship. Many have taken the as synonymous with, on account of, on occasion of, etc. Others have supposed that it referred to the subject, of, concerning. The Seventy translate to Aavid, to Ασάφ. The older divines, as Carpzov,5 would supply the phrase, "given by the Holy Spirit." The common opinion that this points to the authors, may be supported by numerous passages, in which marks a genitive; one of the most pertinent is Habak. 3: 1, a pipati mben. Thus the Arabians employ their to designate an author. Consequently the phrase

6

must also be understood of authorship, as Carpzov justly remarks; but as it is difficult to suppose several authors of one Psalm, Eichhorn understands it, in this case, as referring to the persons to whom was committed the business of setting the Psalm to music. We may, however, and indeed must, understand it in the sense of authorship, but with the qualification, that in strict propriety the title should have ascribed the Psalm to one of the Korabites only; but as the individual was unknown, it mentioned them all, so that the phrase should be rendered, a Korahite Psalm. When the is joined with names which evidently designate, not the authors but the subjects, e. g. Ps. 72, Ps. 21 77, where probably Solomon and David are the subjects of the songs; we are tempted to ascribe

1 Bava Bathra f. 14.

3 Ep. ad Sophronium.

5 Introd. II. p. 96.

2 Comp. Bertholdt. Einl. I. 1971.

4 Preface to Com. on Psalms.

6 Comp. Storr Observatt. ad Analog. et Syntax. Hebr. p. 291.

7 Comp. Chr. Ben. Michaelis Diss. qua Soloecismus casuum ab

Ebraismo sacri Codicis depellitur. § XIII. p. 15, 16.

8 Ad 1. c. p. 97.

VOL. III. No. 11.

9 Einl. IV. § 226.

59

to it another signification; but it is still better to suppose that some gross mistakes were committed by the authors of these titles, from which in other respects they cannot be pronounced wholly free. The following are the authors mentioned in the titles.

I. To Moses, the 90th Psalm is ascribed; with what propriety is a question not so completely set at rest as Eichhorn imagines, and which has been doubted by many. The Talmudists ascribe also the ten next succeeding Psalms to Moses, in accordance with the rule that the anonymous Psalms belong to the last mentioned author, a rule which is adopted also by Jerome and Origen. But this supposition is unsupported, and has been fairly refuted by Jahn.2

II. David is the most distinguished and fruitful contributor to the collection of Psalms. Seventy four Psalms are ascribed to him to these the Seventy add ten more,1 (or eleven if we count Ps. 10 which they unite with Ps. 9,) and many of the learned add all, or nearly all, the anonymous Psalms. But according to the judgment of the best expositors, (Eichhorn, Rosenmueller, Bauer, Jahn, and others,) many of the Psalms which bear David's name cannot be his, as they contain allusions to the siege of Jerusalem, the Babylonian captivity, and similar events belonging to a later age, besides occasional Chaldaisms. To this number belong Ps. 14, 69, 103, 122 and other Psalms of degrees, Ps. 139, and others. But from this circumstance

1 E. G. Bengel, 1. c. p. 19 sq. thinks that especially, when it stands alone or before, denotes the age and the subject rather than the author.

2 Einl. II. 706. Ps. 100 mentions Samuel, and cannot therefore have been composed until after Samuel.

3 According to Cod. 39 Kenn. Ps. 66 besides. And according to Cod. 89. 214 Kenn. Cod. 34. (a pr. m.) 874. (corr.) de Ross. also Ps. 67.-Rosenmueller and Eichhorn number only 71.

4 Namely Ps. 33, 43, 91, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 104.

5 E. g. Carpzov 1. c. p. 97.

6 This is done upon the authority of 1 Chron. 16: 7, which represents the anonymous Psalms 96, 105, as having been sung at the consecration of the tabernacle; and on that of the New Testament in which (Acts 4: 25) the second, and (Heb. 4: 7) the 95th Psalms are quoted under the name of David. For an answer to this argument, see Rosenmueller Prolegg. XV. Stark Davidis Carmina Vol. I. P. II. p. 405 sqq.