Слике страница
PDF
ePub

they are ignored are the Christian versions in Syriac and Arabic, in both of which their places are generally occupied by titles, sometimes referring to the occasion of the original composition of the Psalms, but more often explaining their spiritual application. In these exceptions, however, it should be noticed that the titles are not varied, but ignored, entirely fresh ones being substituted; and it is by no means safe to infer that the titles were wanting in the MSS. from which the Versions were made. They were probably omitted to make room for the new ones explaining how the Psalms were interpreted by the Church.

(2) Secondly, we claim a still higher antiquity for the titles, from the fact that in many cases they were absolutely unintelligible to the translators of the LXX., the key to their true interpretation having been lost before that version was made. The information conveyed by the inscriptions is of three kinds, concerning (1) the author, (2) the circumstances under which the Psalm was composed, and (3) the liturgical use to be made of it. In the interpretation of the first two classes there is generally no sort of difficulty, and consequently these are fairly represented in the Greek and other Versions; but with regard to the third, the case is different. It would almost seem that the meaning of the liturgical directions was lost during the Babylonish Captivity, for there is no allusion to them in the Books of the Return, such as Ezra, Nehemiah, and Haggai; while the solitary reference to them in Chronicles is in connexion with David's original arrangement of the musical service, and throws no light whatever on the expressions employed.' In any case, we can hardly suppose that the terms in question were in common use after the rebuilding of the Temple, and restoration of the musical service, or some surer traditions of their meaning must have survived, if not in the LXX., yet in the Targum or the Talmud.

Turning then to the LXX., and comparing the liturgical notices there with the corresponding passages in the Hebrew, we are at once struck by the hopeless ignorance of their meaning displayed by the translators. A few instances will suffice to make this clear. The well-known formula ? (for the Precentor) which occurs in the inscriptions more than fifty times is invariably rendered eis Tò TÉλos, and other terms still unintelligible to us were even more so to these early translators, e.g. :

1 1 Chron. xv. 20, 21: the passage is probably taken from an older document.

[blocks in formation]

Ps. v. 1. nibby (A. V.'upon Nehiloth) appears in the LXX. as ὑπὲρ τῆς κληρονομούσης.

Ps. viii. I ; lxxx. I; lxxxiv. 1. naby (A. V. upon Gittith) ὑπὲρ τῶν ληνῶν.

Ps. ix. 1. a no-by (A. V. upon Muth-labben) vπÈρ TÔν κρυφίων τοῦ υἱοῦ.

Ps. xxii. 1. by (A. V. upon Aijeleth Shahar) vπèρ τῆς ἀντιλήψεως τῆς ἑωθινῆς.

Ps. xlv. I.

by (A. V. upon Shoshannim) vπÈρ tôv

ἀλλοιωθησομένων. Ps. lxxxviii. 1. ny

hop-by (A. V. upon Mahalath Leannoth) ὑπὲρ μαελὲθ τοῦ ἀποκριθῆναι.

What conclusion can we possibly arrive at from a study of these examples, but this: That when the translation was made in the second century B.C., the titles were of no recent date, but that their origin and meaning were already lost in obscurity? And this conclusion is confirmed by an examination of the titles themselves, and a consideration of the cases in which they are present or absent. In the first book (Pss. i.-xli.) four Psalms are without any title, viz., i., ii., x., xxxiii.; of these, i, and ii. are introductory, and, according to S. Jerome, were reckoned as but one Psalm,' while x. is clearly due to the author of ix.—to which it is joined in four Hebrew MSS., as well as in the LXX.,-and xxxiii. is connected with xxxii. in at least ten MSS. In the second book (xlii.-lxxii.) there are only two orphan Psalms,' viz., xliii. and lxxi., of which xliii. is evidently a portion of xlii., being rightly joined to it in no less than forty-six MSS., and lxxi. forms but a part of lxx. in twenty-seven MSS. In the third book (lxxiii.-lxxxix.) titles of some sort are found in every case. In the fourth (xc.-cvi.) they are wanting in eight, and in only three instances is the name of the author given; and in the fifth book (cvii.-cl.) they are absent from eighteen; while of the thirty-six Psalms in this book in which some title is given, in only sixteen is the authorship mentioned, fifteen Psalms being assigned to David and one to Solomon. Now were these titles due to a late editor or compiler, we should expect that they would be fullest in those Psalms composed nearest to his own date, and that they would be absent from the earlier Psalms, concerning the composition of which information would presumably be more difficult to obtain. But as a matter of fact, precisely the reverse is the case. The older the Psalm, the more confidently do we look for a title. The fact is striking; and it is

1 So the Talmud: Tr. 'Berachoth,' f. 9. 2.

impossible to account for it on any theory, except that the titles formed part of the original Psalms, and were handed down with them from the days of David and the Kingdom. Again, the general omission of titles, more especially of those denoting authorship, in the later books tends to confirm our high opinion of the care and scrupulousness of the original editor of the Psalter in its present form; for were they due, as the Dean of Peterborough supposes, to 'caprice,' or were they 'the fruits of conjecture, or of dimmer and more uncertain traditions,' it would certainly be remarkable that this capricious editor had not exercised his ingenuity and power of guessing a little more, and given us a few additional conjectures, even if he had exhausted his stock of dim and uncertain traditions. Thus the existence of so many orphan Psalms' is of itself an indication that they were not prefixed carelessly and at random; and their position generally in the later books of the collection is an argument for the antiquity of the inscriptions which occur so much more frequently in the earlier ones.1

Once more, an examination of the titles themselves gives us a further argument for their antiquity. Not to mention that the title prefixed to Ps. xviii. is identical in form with 2 Sam. xxii. I, and that others refer to well-known incidents in the life of David, we find that in some cases they have preserved independent historical notices, that could not by any possibility have been mere happy conjectures of a late editor, drawn from a careful study of the Books of Samuel. Such are the following:

Ps. vii.-Shiggaion of David; which he sang unto the LORD concerning the words of Cush the Benjamite.

Ps. xxxiv. A Psalm of David, when he changed his behaviour before Abimelech: who drove him away, and he departed.

Ps. 1x.-Michtam of David, to teach; when he strove with Aram-naharaim and with Aram-zobah, when Joab re

1 The arguments in the text are perhaps confirmed by a reference to the use of the term 'Selah,'-undoubtedly a musical direction of some kind, whatever its precise significance may be. The term occurs no less than seventy times in the course of the Psalter, but never once in an orphan Psalm.' It is frequent in the first three books, is never found in the fourth, and only four times in the fifth, and these four times in liturgical Psalms attributed to David, viz., cxl. and cxliii. Outside the Psalter it only occurs twice-in the hymn of Habakkuk (iii.). The inference is, that Selah, like the titles, is of extreme antiquity, and belongs only to the Psalms before the Captivity, when David's arrangements for the Psalmody were still in existence.

turned, and smote of Edom in the Valley of Salt twelve thousand.

In all these cases the very difficulty and originality of the title is a strong evidence of its authentic character; and it should never be forgotten that in common fairness the titles should be treated as a class: that they stand or fall together: that the external evidence is the same for all;1 and that therefore we are not at liberty to accept those few that seem to commend themselves to our judgment, and reject others that, so far as the evidence is concerned, stand on precisely the same footing. If we accept the statement that David sang Ps. vii. concerning the words of Cush the Benjamite, then we are bound also to believe that Ps. li. is, as it professes to be, 'a Psalm of David, when Nathan the prophet came unto him, after he had gone in to Bathsheba.' The evidence for both statements is one and the same, and we have no more right to treat them differently than we should have to take two verses of the New Testament, both supported by full external evidence of MSS. and Versions, and, while we accept one of them because its contents commend themselves to our judgment, reject the other because of difficulties and apparent contradictions in it. It is, of course, perfectly possible that occasionally a 77 may have been misplaced, or carelessly written by a scribe who had already copied out several Davidic Psalms, but (as we have already seen) many of the titles consist of whole verses, and not of single words, and therefore their presence or absence must be intentional, and cannot be set down to the score of carelessness and inadvertence.

Upon the whole, then, we may set down the results of our inquiry as follows:--

(1) There is no evidence that the titles are due to the caprice of a late editor, or to dim and uncertain traditions.

(2) That they have the same amount of evidence from MSS. and Versions as the rest of the Old Testament.

(3) That they were treated as an integral part of the Psalter, and so a portion of Holy Scripture as far back as we can trace the history of the text.

And the conclusion at which we arrive is this: That we

1 The variations in the MSS. are but trifling. The following are all that are noticed by Davidson in his Hebrew Text revised from critical sources-Ps. xliii. is attributed to David in a few MSS.; xlvii. to David in one (Cf. LXX., Alex.); lxvi. to David in one; lxvii. to David in a few MSS.; lxxii. omit Solomon, five MSS.; cviii. is given to Asaph, instead of David, in six MSS.; cxxii. omit David, two MSS., LXX. Targ. ; cxxiv. omit David, two MSS., LXX.; cxxxiii. omit David, two MSS., and LXX. (Ed. Rom. insert Alex.).

have no right to apply a different method of treatment to them from that which we apply to the rest of the Old Testament: that we are not at liberty to reject them at our pleasure any more than we are to reject texts elsewhere that present difficulties or seem to involve contradictions. There seems to be no middle course: either the whole of the text of the Old Testament must be subjected to the knife of the critic, and those parts that fail to commend themselves to his judgment must be erased; or the whole text, as presented by MSS. and Versions, must be accepted by him as that which he is to explain and interpret, but not to mutilate and disintegrate. Either course is plain and simple, but there is no position between the two. It is uncritical to accept the text of the whole Psalm when you have carefully cut out the first verse!

The question has often been asked, and never yet answered, Why am I bound to accept the title of David's elegy p-by nan

1

if לְלַמֵד בְּנֵי־יְהוּדָה קָשֶׁת הִנֵּה כְתוּבָה עַל־סֵפֶר הַיָּשָׁר ? 18 .in 2 Sam. i or ;2 מִכְתָּם לְדָוִד לְלַמֵד וגו : .I am at liberty to reject that of Ps. Ix

4

what right have I to refuse to excise the words of Isaiah

if I claim the 3 מִכְתָּב לְחִזְקִיָּהוּ מֶלֶךְ־יְהוּדָה בַּחֲלֹתוֹ וַיְחִי מֵחָלְיוֹ 9 .xxxviii לְדָוִד מִכְתָּם בִּשְׁלֹחַ liberty of ignoring the statement of Ps. lix. I and once more, do I not forfeit my ; שָׁאוּל וַיִּשְׁמְרוּ אֶת־הַבַּיִת לַהֲמִיתוֹ

right to uphold Hab. iii. as a genuine composition of the prophet whose name it bears, or at least to point to its

if I fail to receive as true the first half of Ps. xc. ver. I.

5

* תְּפִלָּה לַחֲבַקוּק הַנָּבִיא עַל שְׁגִינוֹת title as an evidence of authorship

[ocr errors]

We repeat it; there is no middle course between unlimited license and the acceptance of the Psalm titles as they stand as a portion of the text of the Old Testament; and we are the more earnest in enforcing this, because it is so little recognised at the present day, and because the treatment of the subject in our modern Commentaries is eminently inadequate. Things have come to such a pass that the external

1 This should, perhaps, be rendered 'For the children of Israel to learn by heart. Kasheth from the book of Jasher.' See the Speaker's Commentary, in loc.

2 Michtam of David, to teach &c.

3 The writing of Hezekiah, the King of Judah, when he had been sick, and was recovered of his sickness.

4 Michtam of David, when Saul sent and they watched the house to kill him.

5 A Prayer of Habakkuk, the prophet upon Shigionoth. A Prayer of Moses, the man of God.

« ПретходнаНастави »