II. The Psalmodic Literature

II. THE PSALMODIC LITERATURE
1. The Psalms of the Maccabaean Age
It had been already observed by Calvin with reference to the 44th Psalm that: Querimoniae quas continet proprie conveniunt in miserum illud et calamitosum tempus quo grassata est saevissima tyraunis Antiochi. Ever since the question whether psalms belonging to the Maccabaean age are also to be found in our canon has been mooted and more and more answered in the affirmative. It was Hitzig Lengerke and Olshausen above all that referred a large number of the psalms to the time of the Maccabaean struggles and to a still later period (embracing the reign of the Hasmonaean princes down to the second century B.C.). Others have limited the number of Maccabaean psalms to only a very few. But the fact that we have psalms belonging to Maccabaeau times in the canon at all is being more and more recognised. Nor is it possible to allege any plausible reason for thinking otherwise. For the assertion that that was an age but little calculated to develope religious fervour or poetical genius is a mere petitio principii while as little can be said in favour of the Other assertion that at that time the canon had been already closed. for this is just a point about which we simply know nothing whatever unless we ought rather to say that the Book of Daniel alone is sufficient proof to the contrary. If therefore the possibility of the existence of psalms belonging to Maccabaean times be beyond question then it can only be shown from the contents of the different psalms themselves how far that possibility is also a reality. Accordingly there is a wide consensus of opinion in favour of the view that the 44th 77th 79th and 83rd Psalms above all contain within themselves the most powerful reasons possible for ascribing their origin to the Maccabaean age. It was only then that it could be rightly and fairly asserted as is done in Psalms 44 that the people had faithfully adhered to the covenant made with Jehovah and had not deviated from it and that it was just for this very reason therefore for their religion that they were being persecuted (Psalms 44:18-23). It is only to such a time as that that we could well refer the complaints that the “houses of God” (מוֹעֲדֵי־אֵל) i.e. the synagogues had been burnt in the land and that there is no longer any prophet there (Psalms 74:8-9). There is no age except the Maccabaean to which all that could so well apply which in Psalms 79 is said about the desecration but not the destruction of the temple and the laying waste of Jerusalem and in Psalms 83 on the persecution of Israel. But if these four psalms had their origin in Maccabaean times then there are many more of a kindred nature that must be referred to the same period. The real point at issue then can only be not “whether” there are any such psalms at all but only “how many of them” there are. And this will always remain a disputed point for there are but few of the psalms that bear such evident traces of the date and circumstances of their origin as those just mentioned. Meanwhile let it suffice to have pointed out the fact that the holy Church of the Maccabaean time has given proof of its creative powers in the department of sacred lyrics as well through those new psalms in which it pours out its wail of distress before God and cries for protection and help from the Almighty.
For the literature of this question see the various introductions to the Old Testament for example De Wette-Schrader Einleit. in die kanon. und apotr. Bücher des A. T.’s (1869) § 334; Kleinert Abriss der Einl. zum A. T. (1878) p. 45.
The following authorities have expressed themselves in favour of the view that there are Maccabaean psalms in our canon: Rüdinger (1580). Venema (1762-67). E. G. Bengel Dissertatio ad introductiones in librum Psalmorum supplementa quaedam exhibens Tübing. 1806. Hitzig Begriff der Kritik am A. T. praktisch erörtert Heidelb. 1831. Idem Die Psalmen 2 vols. Heidelb. 1835 1836. Idem Ueber die Zeitdauer der hebräischen Psalmenpoesie (Züricher Monatschr. 1856 pp. 436-452). Hesse De psalmis Maccabaicis Vratisl. 1837. Lengerke Die fünf Bücher der Psalmen 2 vols. Königsberg 1847. Olshauaen Die Psalmen erklärt Leipzig 1853 (being the fourteenth number of the Exegetical Handbook to the Old Testament). De Jong Disquisitio de Psalmis Maccabaicis Lugd. Bat. 1857. Steiner art. “Psalmen” in Schenkel’s Bibellex. vol. v. pp. 1-9. Reuse Gesch. der heil Schriften Alten Testaments (1881) § 481. Comp. further Reuse La Bible Ancien Testament 5th part Paris 1875. Giesebrect Ueber die Abfassungszeit der Psalmen (Stade’s Zeitsch. für die alttestamentl. Wissensch. vol. i. 1881 pp. 276-332). Delitzsch in the more recent editions of his commentary on the psalms also admits the existence of several Maccabaean psalms.
The following authorities again take an opposite view: Gesenius in No. 81 of the supplements to the Allgemeinen Literaturzeitung 1816. Hassler Comment. crit. de psalmis Maccab. 2 vols. Ulm 1827-1832. Ewald Jahrb. der bibl. Wissensch. vi. 1854 pp. 20-32 viii. 1857 p. 165 sqq. Dillmann Jahrbb. für deutsche Theol. 1858 p. 460 sqq. Hupfeld Die Psalmen übersetzt und ausgelegt 4 vols. Gotha 1855-1862. Ehrt Abfassungszeit und Abschluss des Psalters zur Prüfung der Frage nach Makkabäerpsalmen historisch-kritisch untersucht Leipzig 1869. Wanner Etude critique sur les Psaumes 44 74 79 et 83 considéres par plusieurs théologiens comme provenant de l’époque des Maccabées Lusanne 1876 (comp. the reviews in the Revue de théologie et de philosophie 1877 p. 399 sq.).
2. The Psalms of Solomon
In the list of books as given in several copies of the Christian canon of the Old Testament the ψαλμοὶ Σολομῶντος are also included and that in some instances under the category of ἀντιλεγόμενα along with the Books of Maccabees the Wisdom of Solomon Jesus the Son of Sirach Judith Tobit etc. (as in the case of the so-called Stichometria of Nicephorus and in the Synopsis Athanasii) and in others under the category of ἀντιλεγόμενα along with Enoch the Patriarchs Apocalypses of Moses and Ezra etc. (as in the case of anonymous list of the canon still extant in various manuscripts). From its first-mentioned position we can see that in the Christian Church this book was in many quarters regarded as canonical. It is included under the category of ἀπόκρυφα simply because not being in the Hebrew canon it was not acknowledged to be canonical by those who made that the standard. Besides this there are still in existence several Greek manuscripts of the Bible in which the Psalms of Solomon find a place precisely in accordance with the lists just mentioned; and it is just possible that if the manuscripts of the Septuagint were carefully searched there might be found to be still more of them than are already known to us. These psalms amount to eighteen in number. They were first printed from an Augsburg manuscript by de la Cerda (1626) and subsequently by Fabricius (1713) while in our own time an edition collated with a Vienna manuscript has been published by Hilgenfeld whose text is also followed in the editions of Geiger Fritzsche and Pick.
The ascribing of these psalms to Solomon is simply due to the later transcribers. The work itself does not lay the slightest claim to such authorship; on the contrary it betrays very distinct traces of the date of its composition. That certainly was not as Ewald Grimm Oehler Dillmann (at one time) Weiffenbach and Anger would have us believe the time of Antiochus Epiphanes nor as Movers Delitzsch and Keim suppose the time of Herod but as is now universally admitted—for example by Langen Hilgenfeld Nöldeke Geiger Carriere Wellhausen Reuss Dillmann (now)—the period shortly after the conquest of Jerusalem by Pompey. That the psalms were composed at that time may be regarded as absolutely certain from the various explicit indications of this in the second eighth and seventeenth psalms. The contemporary state of things which these psalms presuppose is somewhat as follows: A family to which the promise of ruling over Israel had not been given seized the reins of government by force (17:6). They did not give God the glory but of themselves assumed the king’s crown and took possession of the throne of David (17:7 8). In their time the whole of Israel fell into sin. The king despised the law the judge was unfaithful to truth and the people lived in sin (17:21 22). But God overthrew those princes by raising up against them a man from a strange land and who was not of the race of Israel (17:8 9). From the ends of the earth God brought one who could strike with a mighty blow who declared war against Jerusalem and all its territory. The princes of the land in their blindness went out to meet him with joy and said to him: “Thy approach has been longed for come hither enter in peace.” They opened the gates to him so that he entered like a father into the house of his sons (8:15-20). But after he had securely established himself in the city he also seized the battlements and threw down the walls of Jerusalem with the batteringram (8:21 2:1). Jerusalem was trodden under foot by the heathen (2:20); nay the strange peoples ascended the altar of God itself (2:2). All the leading men and every wise man in the council were put to death; and the blood of the inhabitants of Jerusalem was poured out like unclean water (8:23). The inhabitants of the land were carried away captive into the West and its princes insulted (17:13 14 2:6 8:24). But at last the dragon that had conquered Jerusalem (2:29) was itself put to death on the mountains of Egypt by the sea-shore. But his body was allowed to lie unburied (2:30 31). It can scarcely require any further commentary to prove that we are here dealing with the time of the conquest of Jerusalem by Pompey and that it is to it alone that the circumstances presupposed can be said to apply. The princes who had been so arrogant as to assume the rule over Jerusalem and take possession of the throne of David are the Hasmonaeans who ever since Aristobulus L. had taken the title of king. The last of the princes of this house Alexander Jannaeus and Aristobulus II. openly favoured the Sadducean party so that in the eyes of our author with his Pharisaic leanings they appeared in the light of sinful and lawless men. The “man of the strange land” and “of powerful blows” whom God summons from the end of the earth is no other than Pompey. The princes who go out to meet him are Aristobulus II. and Hyrcanus II. The supporters of this latter opened the gates of the city to Pompey who then proceeded to take by storm (ἐν κριῷ 2:1) the other portion of the town in which those belonging to Aristobulus’s party had entrenched themselves. All the rest that follows the contemptuous treading of the temple by the conquerors the mowing down of the inhabitants the execution of the leading men among them[2375] the carrying away of the captives to the West and of the princes to be mocked (εἰς ἐμπαιγμόν 17:14 i.e. for the triumphal procession in Rome) corresponds with what actually took place. But it is above all the circumstance of the captives being carried away to the West (17:14) that proves that the taking of Jerusalem by Pompey is alone to be thought of. For the only other case besides this that might possibly be in view is the conquest of Jerusalem by Titus but to this none of the other circumstances are found to apply.[2376] But if there could be any doubt before it utterly vanishes when finally we are told that the conqueror was killed on the coast of Egypt on the sea-shore (ἐπὶ κυμάτων) and that his body was left lying without being buried (2:31). For this is precisely what actually took place in the case of Pompey (in the year 48 B.C.). Consequently the second psalm was undoubtedly composed soon after this event while the eighth and seventeenth as well as most of the others may be assumed to have been written between the years 63-48. There exists no reason whatever for coming down so late as to the time of Herod. For “the man from the strange land” who according to 17:9 rose up against the Hasmonaean princes is as the context makes it impossible to doubt the same personage who according to 17:14 carries away the captives to the West and therefore not Herod as Movers Delitzsch and Keim would have us suppose but Pompey.
[2375] Ps. 8:23: ἀπώλεσεν ἄρχοντας αὐτῶν καὶ πάντα σοφὸν ἐν βουλῇ compare with Joseph. Antt. xiv. 4. 4 (Bell. Jud. i. 7. 6): τοὺς αἰτίους τοῦ πολέμου τῷ πελέκει διεχρήσατο.
[2376] There is above all the circumstance that nowhere in our psalms is there any mention whatever of a destruction of the city and the temple.
The spirit which the psalms breathe is entirely that of Pharisaic Judaism. They are pervaded by an earnest moral tone and a sincere piety. But the righteousness which they preach and the dearth of which they deplore is all through the righteousness that consists in complying with all the Pharisaic prescriptions the δικαιοσύνη προσταγμάτων (14:1). The fate of man after death is represented as depending simply upon his works. It is left entirely in his own option whether he is to decide in favour of righteousness or unrighteousness (comp. especially 9:7). If he does the former he will rise again to eternal life (3:16); if the latter eternal perdition will be his doom (13:9 sqq. 14:2 sqq. 15) As a contrast to the unlawful rule of the Hasmonaeans which had been put an end to by Pompey the author cherishes the confident expectation of that Messianic king of the house of David who is one day to lead Israel to the promised glory (17:1 5 23-51 18:6-10. Comp. further 7:9 11).
The view previously held by Grätz that our psalms are of Christian origin seems to have been abandoned by that writer himself[2377] and in any case does not call for serious refutation. But neither have we any right to assume that they contain even Christain interpolations. For the sinlessness and holiness which the author ascribes to the Messiah expected by him (17:41 46) is not sinlessness in the sense of Christian dogmatics but simply rigid legalism in the Pharisaic sense.
[2377] The remark here referred to (Gesch. der Juden vol. iii. 2nd ed. p. 439) is not repeated in the 3rd ed. vol. iii. p. 621.
Despite Hilgenfeld’s view to the contrary it is almost universally allowed that the psalms were originally composed in Hebrew. And undoubtedly not without good reason. For the diction of the psalms is so decidedly Hebrew in its Character that it is impossible to suppose that they were written originally in Greek. And for this reason it is no less certain that they were not written in Alexandria but in Palestine. It may not be amiss to mention further the correspondence to some extent a verbal one between Psalms 11. and the fifth chapter of Baruch. If we are correct in supposing that the psalms were written originally in Hebrew then the imitation must be regarded as being on the part of Baruch.
The place assigned to our psalms in the Christian canon: I. Among the ἀντιλεγόμενα: (1) in the Stichometria of Nicephorus as given in Credner Zur Geschichte des Kanons (1847) p. 120 Nicephori opuscula ed. de Boor (Lips. 1880) p. 134. (2) In the Synopsis Athanasii as given in Credner Zur Gesch. des Kanons p. 144. II. Among the ἀπόκρυφα in an anonymous list of canonical books which has been printed (1) from a certain Codex Coislinianus as given in Montfaucon’s Bibliotheca Coisliniana Paris 1715 p. 194; (2) from a Parisian manuscript as given in Cotelier’s Patrum apost. Opp. vol. i. 1698 p. 196; (3) from a certain Codex Baroccianus at Oxford and as given in Hody’s De Bibliorum textibus 1705 p. 649 col. 44; (4) from a Vatican codex as given in Pitra’s Juris ecclesiastici Graecorum historia et monumenta vol. i. 1864 p. 100 (on the relation of those four texts to each other see No. V. below the chapter on the lost Apocalypses). III. In his scholia to the decrees of the Council of Laodicea Zonoras observes in connection with the 59th canon (Beveregius Pandectae canonum Oxon. 1672 vol. i. p. 481): ἐκτὸς τῶν ρνʹ ψαλμῶν τοῦ Δαβὶδ εὑρίσκονται καί τινες ἕτεροι λεγόμενοι τοῦ Σολομῶντος εἶναι καὶ ἄλλων τινῶν οὓς καὶ ἰδιωτικοὺς ὠνόμασαν οἱ πατέρες καὶ μὴ λέγεσθαι ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ διετάξαντο. Similarly Balsamon (in Beveregius i. 480). IV. In the Codex Alexandrinus of the Greek Bible the Psalms of Solomon as is shown by the list of contents prefixed to the codex found a place in the Appendix to the New Testament after the Epistles of Clement (see Credner Gesch. des neutestamentl. Kanons 1860 p. 238 sq.). In the Vienna manuscript on the other hand where the Psalms are still extant they come in between the Wisdom of Solomon and Jesus the Son of Sirach.
Up to the present time the manuscripts that have been found are five in number: (1) The manuscript from which the editio princeps of de la Cerda was printed; it was brought from Constantinople in the year 1615 was in the possession of David Höschel and then found its way to the Augsburg library (Fabricius Cod. pseudepigr. i. 973 914 sq.) but it has now disappeared. (2) A Vienna codex (cod. gr. theol. 7) Haupt’s collation of which Hilgenfeld made use of in his edition of the Psalms. (3) A Copenhagen manuscript an account of which is given by Graux in the Revue Critique 1877 No. 46 pp. 291-293. (4) A Moscow manuscript and (5) a Parisian one both of which were discovered and collated by Gebhardt (see Theol. Literaturzeitung 1877 p. 627 sq.). The three last-mentioned MSS. have not yet been made use of in any edition of our Psalms.
Editions: (1) De la Cerda Adversaria sacra Lyons 1626 Appendix. (2) Fabricius Codex pseudepigraphus Veteris Testamenti vol. i. 1713 pp. 914-999. (3) Hilgenfeld Zeitschrift für wissenschaftl. Theologie 1868 pp. 134-168. Idem Messias Judaeorum Lips. 1869 pp. 1-33. (4) Eduard Ephräm Geiger Der Psalter Salomo’s herausgegeben und erklärt Augsburg 1871. (5) Fritzsche Libri apocryphi Veteris Testamenti graece Lips. 1871 pp. 569-589. (6) Pick Presbyterian Review 1883 Oct. pp. 775-812. A new edition was prepared by Gebhardt for the “Texte und Untersuchungen” edited by himself and Harnack.
German translations with explanatory notes have been published by Geiger as above. Hilgenfeld Die Psalmen Salomo’s deutsch übersetzt una anfs Neue untersucht (Zeitschr. für wissenschaftl. Theologie 1871 pp. 383-418). Wellhausen Die Pharisäer und die Sadducäer (1874) pp. 131-164. There is an English translation by Pick as above.
On the circumstances under which our Psalms were written: I. Ewald Geschichte des Volkes Israel iv. 392 sq. (subsequently Ewald hit upon the idea of dating the Psalms back to the time of Ptolemy Lagus; see the reviews of the writing of Geiger and Carriere in the Göttinger gel. Anzeigen 1871 pp. 841-850 and 1873 pp. 237-240). Grimm Exeget. Handbuch zu 1 Makk. p. 27. Oehler art. “Messias” in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 1st ed. ix. 426 sq. Dillmann art. “Pseudepigraphen” in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 1st ed. xii. 305 sq. Weiffenbach Quae Jesu in regno coelesti dignitas sit synopticorum sententia exponitur (Gissae 1868) p. 49 sq. Anger Vorlesungen über die Geschichte der messianischen Idee (1873) p. 81 sq. II. Movers in Wetzer und Welte’s Kirchenlex. 1st ed. i. 340. Delitzsch Commentar über den Psalter 1st ed. ii. 381 sq. Keim Geschichte Jesu von Nazara i. 243. III. Langen Das Judenthum in Palästina (1866) pp. 64-70. Hilgenfeld Zeitschr. 1868 Messias Judaeorum proleg. Zeitschr. 1871. Nöldeke Die alttestamentl. Literatur (1868) p. 141 sq. Hausrath Neutestamentl. Zeitgesch. 2nd ed. i. pp. 157 sq. 168. Geiger in his edition of our Psalms. Fritzsche prolegom. to his edition. Wittichen Die Idee des Reiches Gottes (1872) pp. 155-160. Carriere De psalterio Salomonis Argentorati 1870. Well-hausen Die Pharisäer und die Sadducäer p. 112 sqq. Stähelin Jahrb. für deutsche Theol. 1874 p. 203. Drummond The Jewish Messiah (1877) pp. 133-142. Kaulen in Wetzer und Welte’s Kirchenlex. 2nd ed. i. 1060 sq. Lucius Der Essenismus (1881) pp. 119-121. Reuss Gesch. der heil. Schriften A. T.’s § 526. Dillmann in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 2nd ed. vol. xii. 1883 p. 346. Pick The Psalter of Solomon (Presbyterian Review 1883 Oct. pp. 775-812).