reigns of Jehoshaphat and Hezekiah were marked by fresh outbursts of Psalm poetry. Under both these kings great national deliverances called for fresh expressions of praise and thanksgiving (2 Ch. xx; 2 Kings xviii. ff.): Jehoshaphat exerted himself for the religious education of the country (2 Chr. xvii. 7 ff.): the collection of Proverbs, made under the direction of Hezekiah, attests his interest in literature (Prov. xxv. 1). A few Psalms date from the time of the destruction of Jerusalem and the earlier years of the exile. Some (cp. p. xxxvi) may be from the pen of Jeremiah, who has been credited by some critics with the authorship of a considerable number1. With the Return from the Exile Psalmody revived. The harp which had been hung up on the willows of Babylon was strung once more. Fresh hymns were written for the services of the restored Temple. Psalms xciii, xcv-c, the lyrical echo of Is. xl-lxvi, form a noble group of anthems composed in all probability for the Dedication of the Temple in B.C. 516. Other Psalms may reflect the circumstances of the age of Ezra and Nehemiah, and the renewed study of the Law in that period bore fruit in the devout meditations of Ps. cxix. How long did the Psalter still continue to receive further enrichment? The question has been warmly debated in ancient and modern times, whether any of the Psalms belong to the Maccabaean period. Prophecy was silent (1 Macc. iv. 46, &c.); but must not the great revival of national spirit naturally have found expression in poetry? and do not some of the Psalms clearly refer to the circumstances of that period? Some critics, as has been mentioned already (p. xxxvii), would This appears to be due partly to the fact that so much of his personal and inner life is known to us from his autobiography; partly to his familiarity with existing literature and his free use of it, which results in numerous parallels between his prophecies and the Psalms. 2 Yet some of the Temple Psalms in the later books of the Psalter may have been revivals or adaptations of ancient hymns. An incidental reference in Jer. xxxiii. 11 shews that the doxology, "Give thanks to Jehovah of hosts, for Jehovah is good, for his mercy endureth for ever," was the characteristic formula of thanksgiving before the Captivity. Yet it is found only in the later Books (IV and V) of the Psalter (Ps. c. 4, 5; cvi. 1; &c.), in Psalms which are certainly postexilic. refer a considerable number of Psalms, or even the main bulk of the Psalter, to that period, and would bring down the completion of the collection to the reign of John Hyrcanus (B.C. 135 -106) or Alexander Jannaeus (B.C. 105-78). The real question is, however, a much narrower one. The Psalms which have been most confidently and generally referred to the age of the Maccabees are xliv, lxxiv, lxxix, and lx, lxxxiii; with a few others. These are thought to present features which belong to that age, and to no other; e.g. in Ps. xliv the description of the nation as suffering, though it has been faithful to God; in lxxiv the destruction of the synagogues, the profanation of the Temple, and the cessation of prophecy: while the quotation of lxxix. 2, 3 in 1 Macc. vii. 16, 17 with reference to the slaughter of the Assideans by the usurping high-priest Alcimus, is supposed to imply that it was written on the occasion of the massacre. The question is one of exegesis, and a detailed examination of the characteristics of these Psalms must be deferred to the commentary on them. It will then be seen whether they cannot be better referred to the Chaldean or Persian period, or even an earlier time. It has well been pointed out that some distinctive features of the Maccabaean period are conspicuously absent from these Psalms. "They do not contain the slightest trace of those internal divisions of the people which were the most marked features of the Maccabaean struggle. The dangers then were as much from within as from without; and party jealousies brought the divine cause to the greatest peril. It is incredible that a series of Maccabaean Psalms should contain no allusion to a system of enforced idolatry, or to a temporising priesthood, or to a faithless multitude1." The preliminary question may however be discussed here, whether the history of the Psalter and the Canon does not exclude the possibility of such late additions. (1) As the author of the Book of Chronicles (c. 300 B.C.), in combining portions of Pss. cv, xcvi, cvi for the festal anthem which he introduces on the occasion of the translation of the Ark to 1 Bp Westcott in Smith's Dict. of the Bible, ii. 168. Zion (1 Chr. xvi. 8 ff.), includes as a part of cvi the doxology which marks the end of the fourth Book, it has been argued that the Psalter must have been already known to him in its five-fold division. This is extremely doubtful. This doxology, as will be shewn in the notes to Ps. cvi, differs in character from the doxologies at the close of the first three Books; in all probability it was an original part of the Psalm, not an addition by the collector of the Psalter, and only came in later times to be regarded as marking the division between the fourth and fifth Books. And even if it were to be admitted that a five-fold division of the Psalter then existed, it would not necessarily follow that the Psalter was finally complete, and closed against the admission of fresh Psalms. (2) More important is the fact that the Psalms which upon internal grounds have most generally and confidently been assigned to the Maccabaean period (xliv, lx, lxxiv, lxxix, lxxxiii) are all found in the 'Elohistic' collection. This collection was certainly earlier than the collection contained in Books IV and V, for Ps. cviii consists of portions of two Elohistic Psalms (see p. lv). Moreover some of the supposed Maccabaean Psalms have musical titles, in contrast to the general practice of the last collection. It is exceedingly improbable that a Maccabaean Psalmist would have made his additions Elohistic to correspond with the earlier Psalms, and even furnished his Psalms with titles which no longer had any meaning1. And is it conceivable that the LXX translators should have been so entirely at fault as to the meaning of the titles of lx and lxxx, if they were quite recent compositions? (3) The Greek translator of Ecclesiasticus, writing in Egypt, about B.C. 130, states in his Prologue that his grandfather Jesus the son of Sirach was moved to write the book after diligent study of “the law and the prophets and the other books of our fathers” (τοῦ νόμου καὶ τῶν προφητῶν καὶ τῶν ἄλλων πατρίων BiBhiwv); and pleading for indulgence towards the defects of his own translation he points out that even in the case of "the law 1 See Robertson Smith, Old Test. in Jewish Church, pp. 207, 437. and the prophecies and the rest of the books" there is no small difference between the original and a translation. From these statements it may reasonably be inferred (1) that Jesus the son of Sirach, c. 180 B.C., was acquainted with a threefold Canon of Scripture, distinguished from other writings; and (2) that a Greek translation of a three-fold Canon was current in Egypt c. 130 B.C. Now "the Greek Psalter...is essentially the same as the Hebrew; there is nothing to suggest that the Greek was first translated from a less complete Psalter and afterwards extended to agree with the received Hebrew. It is therefore reasonable to hold that the Hebrew Psalter was completed and recognised as an authoritative collection long enough before 130 B.C. to allow of its passing to the Hellenistic Jews of Alexandria1." Accordingly the closing of the Canon of the Psalter must be placed, at the very latest, in the time of Simon (c. 140 B.C.). John Hyrcanus (B.C. 135-106), Aristobulus I, who assumed the title of king (B.C. 106), and Alexander Jannaeus (B.C. 105—78), are not celebrated in the Psalter. But it seems very doubtful whether a considerably longer interval than ten years ought not to be allowed between the closing of the collection and its currency in a Greek Version; and the evidence next to be adduced makes it extremely probable that the collection was completed at least half a century earlier. (4) Fresh evidence as to the contents of the Canon of Scripture known to Jesus the son of Sirach has recently been brought to light by the recovery of portions of the Hebrew text of Ecclesiasticus by Dr Schechter and other scholars. In this text ch. li. 12 is followed by a Psalm of fifteen verses, which is unquestionably an imitation of Ps. cxxxv (see Introd. to that Ps.), and is largely composed of phrases taken from Psalms in Book V, e.g. cxxi, cxxxii, cxlvii, cxlviii. In particular, cxlviii. 14 is quoted verbatim. If this Psalm was composed by Jesus the son of Sirach c. 180 B.C., it shews that he was familiar with Psalms, some of which have a strong claim to be regarded as among the latest in the Psalter. This is the most striking example, but Dr Schechter holds that the allusions in the 1 Robertson Smith, O. T. J. C. p. 201. portions of the Hebrew text at present recovered extend over "all the books or groups of the Psalms1." Though it is impossible to prove that the Psalter was finally completed by B.C. 180, a strong presumption is raised against the admission of Psalms after that date, and it is highly probable that among "the other books of the fathers" upon the study of which Jesus the son of Sirach based his work was the Psalter substantially as we now have it. In particular it is noteworthy that we have clear evidence for the existence of the last group of Psalms (cxliv-cl), in which Maccabaean Psalms might most naturally be looked for, and one of which (cxlix) has upon internal grounds the best claim of any Psalm to be regarded as Maccabaean. (5) The Second Book of Maccabees speaks of the care which Judas took to collect the sacred writings which had been dispersed or lost in the war (2 Macc. ii. 14), but no hint is given that the collection included new works. This book however cannot be regarded as a trustworthy historical authority. (6) If the Psalms of Solomon could be referred to the Maccabaean age, they would afford an almost conclusive proof that the whole of the Psalter belongs to a much earlier time. But it is now generally agreed that this collection belongs to the period after the conquest of Jerusalem by Pompey in B.C. 63, and was completed soon after his death in B.C. 483. Even if the Psalms of Solomon are to be placed at this later date, the argument does not altogether lose its force. For they were written only a century after the standard of independence was raised by 1 Schechter and Taylor, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, p. 26. "The impression produced by the perusal of Ben Sira's original on the student who is at all familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures is that of reading the work of a post-canonical author, who already knew his Bible and was constantly quoting it." 2 A collection of 18 Psalms, written in Hebrew, probably in Palestine, but now extant only in a Greek version. The best edition is that of Prof. (now Bp) Ryle and Dr James, with translation and commentary (1891). The text is to be found in Vol. iii of Dr Swete's edition of the LXX (also published separately, with the Greek fragments of Enoch). 3 See Schürer's Hist. of the Jewish People in the time of Jesus Christ, Div. ii. § 32 (Vol. iii. pp. 17 ff., E.T.). The development of this argument by Bp Westcott in Smith's Dict. of the Bible, ii. 168, on the hypothesis of the Maccabaean date of these Psalms, should still be consulted. |