Psalms, BOOK OF. This title indicates a collection of songs set to music (for use in the temple and probably sometimes in the synagogue). A more intelligible term, which like 'psalms' is of Greek origin, and is specially favoured by Philo, is 'hymns'; this corresponds exactly to the Hebrew t'hillim, 'praises,' or 'songs of praise.' The eucharistic element is in fact the most essential one in the book: with the solitary exception of Ps. lxxxviii. there is an undercurrent of thanksgiving even in the most melancholy compositions (cf. Eph. v. 19, 20). There was, however, an earlier stage of psalmody, as a linguistic study of the Hebrew title assures us, when the service of religious song was of a very rough nature, and not under the control of guilds of singers. The ancient Arabs used a term (tahlil) which corresponds to t'hillah for the shouting of a short consecrated formula, and the common root of both names means 'to call, cry out.' Only by degrees did the Israelitish 'psalmody' rise from a shouting like that of the vintage or the bridal night to the carefully trained singing of later times. Indeed, as late as the fall of Jerusalem the noise of the Babylonian soldiers in the temple is compared to that of the worshippers on one of the olden feast-days (Lam. ii. 7).
The question therefore arises, Can our present psalms, so spiritual in tone and in form comparatively so artistic, really be the very forms of prayer and praise used by the pre-exilic Israelites? Or have they literally driven out earlier and less spiritual compositions? Or lastly, have the older formulæ been greatly expanded and idealised, or even sometimes permitted to become imbedded in later works? For this last conjecture some analogies might perhaps be found in the prophetic literature (see, e.g., Isa. ii. 2-4, and Ewald, The Prophets, i. 82, 83), but it can only be admitted to a hearing on proof of the existence in a psalm of really strong inconsistencies of thought and language. Till that proof is given let us accept each psalm as the monument of some particular age, without attempting to extract by analysis fragments of earlier origin than the rest of the poem. To ascertain approximately that age or those ages is the function of criticism. True; but have the critics the means of doing this? 'When once it is admitted, as it must be admitted, that the titles cannot be absolutely relied on,' says an English commentator, 'we are launched upon a sea of uncertainty' (Kirkpatrick). By no means. The question of the origin of the Psalter is of course a complicated one, but we must not say that the student of complicated problems is like a mariner without a compass. There are three conditions upon compliance with which the disagreement of critics will be reduced within very narrow limits. The first is, that no critic should approach the Psalter until he has assimilated a good number of the best critical results which have been reached in other parts of the Old Testament. The second, that he should begin at the end of the Psalter—i.e. with Books iv. and v. (the date of which, as collections, cannot, for various reasons, be later than the accession of Simon the Maccabee), and work his way backwards. The third, that he should break radically with the custom of looking at each psalm by itself, with a view to determining its period. The reason of the first is that there are numerous similarities in language and in tone between the Psalms and other old Hebrew writings; many at least of which afford valid evidence of the date of the poems, the psalmists being in a high degree imitative, and infinitely more prone, for instance, to borrow from the prophets than the prophets to borrow from them. The reason of the second is that, the Psalter being a combination of five 'books' of psalms, it is natural to presume that the two last (which properly form but one book) are later as collections than the three first. These five books are (1) Ps. i.-xli., (2) Ps. xlii.-lxxii., (3) Ps. lxxiii.-lxxxix., (4) Ps. xc.-cvi., (5) Ps. cvii.-cl. And that of the third is that within these five 'books' there are certain minor books or psalters, which have certain common characteristics, and may, at any rate at the outset of the inquiry, be presumed to contain works of the same (not too strictly defined) period. These minor psalters are the Davidic (to which the 'Davidic' psalms in Books iv. and v. do not belong), the Korahite, the Asaphite, and the Songs of Ascent (i.e. of pilgrimage), commonly miscalled 'Songs of Degrees,' in addition to which there are various other groups of psalms, not marked by traditional headings, such as the Hallel and the Hallelujah psalms, the deutero-Isaianic (i.e. those which suggest the writer's acquaintance with the exilic portions of Isaiah), and the Jeremianic (i.e. those which from internal evidence were written either by Jeremiah or by a follower of that great prophet).
Thus, the conscious or unconscious object of recent criticism of the Psalms has been the imparting a stricter and more scientific character to the argument from internal evidence. Not the least difficult part of the work is that which relates to the linguistic phenomena, the evidential value of which has often been too much depreciated. This kind of evidence is no doubt rarely conclusive, but even in the case of the highly imitative psalm-literature will lead the critical student to some perhaps unforeseen results, unless indeed his way is barred by the arbitrary assumption that all the evidences of later date in the supposed pre-exilic psalms have been introduced by editors. And what upon the whole are the results of a criticism which does not float 'upon a sea of uncertainty'? Two very definite ones may be mentioned, with a warning, however, to the student that the criticism of the Psalter is so interwoven with that of other Old Testament books that many good Hebraists might hesitate to endorse even these moderately-stated results. First, that there is a considerable number of psalms belonging to the pre-Maccabean and Maccabean Greek portion of the post-exilic period (see especially Ps. xlix., lxxiv., lxxix., ex., exviii., exlix.). The possibility of this theory (which was virtually held by Theodore of Mopsuestia) is expressly admitted in the margin of our own 'Geneva Bible.' The objections to it are of various degrees of plausibility; none of them, however, are conclusive. It has been urged, for instance, that the so-called Psalms of Solomon (the composition of which falls between 63 B.C. and 46 B.C.) breathe an entirely different spirit from the psalms which may most plausibly be referred to the period of the Greek rule and of the Maccabean rising. But it can be easily shown that the latter event was a turning-point in Jewish religion, after which we might fairly expect a considerable difference in the tone even of liturgical poetry. Moreover, the phrase 'an entirely different spirit' is an exaggeration. There are certainly the germs of legalism in Psalms i., xix. 7-14, exix., and those of later doctrines of immortality and resurrection may (if the late dates of Ps. xvi., xvii., xlix., lxxiii. be granted) be not unreasonably found in parts of the Psalter, while several of the 'Pharisaean' Psalms of Solomon contain passages strikingly parallel to our Ps. xlix. A second result is that none of the extant psalms are the genuine work of David, who was doubtless a gifted musician and poet (the early tradition on this point is clear), but whose hymns were probably too little in accordance with later ideas of art and of religion to escape the great literary as well as political catastrophe of the Exile. Contrast the life of David in the Books of Samuel with the character sketched, evidently from life, in the so-called Davidic psalms. Granting that David lived in the service of an ideal which he sought, but often failed, to realise, could that ideal have agreed with the picture presented to us in the Psalter? How much is there in the tone or the ideas or the implied circumstances of the psalms which agrees with the tone or ideas of the traditional speeches of David and with his traditional history? Enough perhaps to permit us to regard him as a far-off adumbration of the nobler members of the post-exilic church, and therefore also of Him who was the 'root and offspring of David' (Rev. xxii. 16), but scarcely more than this. Indeed the only doubt is, not so much whether any psalms are Davidic, but whether any are even pre-exilic at all. The fact (which, even without scientific proof, it would be unreasonable to doubt) that David composed some psalms was enough to make collectors call certain psalms, or collections of psalms, by his name, somewhat as the various expansions of the older law in different ages were usually referred to Moses. David was in fact the traditional founder of psalmody and to some extent (see below) a precursor of the religion of the Psalter. Perhaps, too, psalms which David really wrote may have been expanded or added to by later writers. The most plausible instance is Ps. lx.; but there is nowhere any necessity to adopt this view. It is safer to hold provisionally that certain psalms are as old as the epoch-making reign of Josiah. Yet the arguments for this view are seldom, if ever, cogent, and mainly depend for their acceptance on our ideas of historical probability, which ideas again depend on the picture we have formed, on critical grounds, of the Babylonian and Persian periods of the history of the Jews. Psalm xviii. is no doubt the psalm which would, more generally than any other, be pronounced pre-exilic. Some of the older critics were even quite sure that it was Davidic, influenced partly by the admission of the poem into what is called the appendix to Samuel (see 2 Sam. xxiii.), which, however, only proves that the poem was conjecturally ascribed to David (the idealised David of later times) by the editor of Samuel, who lived not long before the Exile. To the present writer an early pre-exilic date for this psalm seems incompatible with the internal evidence. He thinks that, though perhaps written in the reign of Josiah as a literary illustration of the life of David, it was only adopted as a temple-hymn after the return from exile, when it was doubtless interpreted as prophetic of a great future Davidic ruler or line of rulers (see Ps. xviii. 50). The final editing of the Psalter he ascribes to the temple-authorities in the time of Simon the Maccabee. The book would quickly be carried to 'Israel in Egypt,' and soon afterwards translated into Greek for the benefit of the great Jewish community at Alexandria. The date of this event cannot be fixed with precision, but it was at any rate before the Christian era.
Among the arguments for the post-exilic date of the Psalms none perhaps is more cogent than that which is based on their essential unity of tone. They have, in short, such a strong family likeness that it would be rash to spread their composition over too extensive a space. And if they all, or nearly all, belong to one period, can we be in doubt which that period is? Is it not obvious that these temple-songs were written for a community which had absorbed, in some real though still imperfect degree, the high teaching of the pre-exilic and exilic prophets? Now, though it would be absurd to say that there were no psalms before the Exile, the writings of Isaiah and Jeremiah prove that the nation, as a whole, was as yet far from having assimilated the pure and spiritual prophetic religion, and that the priests in particular were unprogressive. How then should there have been temple-songs like those in our Psalter before that spiritual regeneration of which the 'Second Isaiah' was presumably the chief instrument? The only way to avoid the conclusion that the Psalms are (with the possible exception of Ps. xviii., and, some will add, of Ps. xx., xxi., xlvi., lxi., lxiii.) post-exilic is to suppose that certain psalms, especially those which remind us of Jeremiah, were written in the reign of Josiah and during the Exile, with the prophetic hope that they would one day be required by a reorganised church-nation. This position represents perhaps the enlightened conservatism of the future, but cannot here be discussed.
In any case, the ideal character depicted in the Psalms belongs to an advanced period in Israel's history. It is that of a righteous man who, in the face of oppression, clings to his religion and his God, who trusts to be delivered, and for the most part is delivered, and who now and then forms bold anticipations of a world converted to the true God, or, it may be, crushed into reluctant obedience; and in the noblest features of this ideal it is impossible not to trace the influence of the two great prophetic teachers of the later period—Jeremiah and the 'Second Isaiah.' It is such a righteous man who, at least in Books i.-iii., for the most part appears to be the speaker, and the question arises, whether he is more accurately viewed as a personification of Israel, or as simply the typical or representative Israelite, such as every member of the congregation either was or desired to become. In some cases no one can deny that the former theory is alone correct (see, e.g., Ps. liv., ix., lxxxvii., cxi., cxxix.), and there are not a few other psalms where its absolute rejection would involve the interpreter in the greatest psychological difficulties (see, e.g., Ps. vi., xxii., xxx., li., cxxx., cxxxi.). It has indeed been hastily stigmatised as forced and fanciful, but the number of passages elsewhere in the Old Testament which without it are unintelligible (see, besides the sections in second Isaiah relative to the 'servant of Jehovah,' Num. vi. 23-26; Micah, vii. 1, 7-10; Hosea, iv. 4, 5, vii. 8, 9; Lam. i. 3), and the numerous analogies in the Greek chornses, prove the baselessness of the charge. The solidarity of the individual and his tribe was in fact one of the ruling ideas of the ancient peoples. It is, however, a priori improbable that the new sense of the duties and privileges of the individual, which was stimulated (but hardly caused) by the preaching of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, should not have left its mark on the Psalter of the second temple. And do we not find such a mark on some or even many of the Psalms? Does not the personality of the psalmist sometimes at least assert itself with distinctness (see, e.g., Ps. xlv. 1, lxxiii. 2, 3, 13-17, 21-28, cvi. 4, 5, cxxix. 18)? Yes; but it will also be noticed that even in such passages (the first and third of those just referred to are perhaps the only exceptions) the psalmist speaks, not only in his own behalf, but at any rate for a class within the Church-nation. And in some of the psalms in which a reference to the nation may most plausibly be maintained, it is almost equally possible to hold that the speaker is a typical or representative Israelite (in the sense described above), or even that the psalmist himself in the same psalm sometimes has the nation, sometimes himself, or any other pions Israelite, in view as the speaker. Reading the Psalms from this point of view makes them not less prophetic of Christ, but much more edifying and intelligible. 'The psalms,' says the eloquent Adolphe Monod, 'are filled with expressions of an unheard-of sorrow. David there speaks incessantly of his troubles, of his maladies, of his innumerable enemies; as we read them we can hardly understand what he meant.' But when we see that it is the troubles of the Church-nation, and not those of any individual, however highly placed, which are described, we can account for the strength of the language, and are also stirred up to purge our own religion of its selfishness. It only needs to be added that our conception of the life of the Church-nation must be a truly historical one. We must not rest contented with the perception that there is a strong family likeness in the Psalms. We must seek out not only resemblances but differences, and ascertain, so far as we can, the historical background of each group of psalms. Hitzig and Ewald may have gone too far in this historical 'divination,' but without exercising this faculty to some extent it is impossible fully to enjoy the Psalms. Historical data will not be wanting if we search for them, and the comparative method will here too be found applicable. The period from the Return to the Maccabees was not so monotonous as it is represented in our handbooks, and by judiciously distributing the Psalms over it on grounds of internal evidence we gain so many fresh first-class authorities for the history of the Jewish Church.
Among modern commentaries accessible in English, see J. A. Alexander (New York, 1850), Tholuck (trans. 1856), Ewald (trans. 2 vols. 1880), Delitzsch (trans. 3 vols. 1887-89), Perowne (latest ed. 1889), Cheyne (1888), De Witt (New York, 1891), Kirkpatrick (vol. i. 1891); and cf. Bishop Alexander, The Witness of the Psalms to Christ and Christianity; Cheyne, The Origin and Religious Contents of the Psalms (Bampton Lectures for 1876 and 1889 respectively).