Search over 40,000 articles from the original, classic Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th Edition.
|
See also:PSALMS, See also:BOOK OF, or PSALTER , the first See also:book of the Hagiographa in the See also:Hebrew See also:Bible . See also:Title and Traditional Authorship.—The Hebrew 'title of the book is ^' Vin, tishillim, or o'Sn " the book of See also:hymns," or rather " songs of praise."' The singular n1,?nn is properly the See also:infinitive or nomen verbi of 59n, a verb employed in the technical See also:language of the See also:Temple service for the See also:execution of a jubilant See also:song of praise to the See also:accompaniment of See also:music and the blare of the priestly trumpets (1 Chron. xvi . 4 seq., See also:xxv . 3; 2 Chron. v . 12 seq.) . The name is not therefore equally applicable to all See also:psalms, and in the later Jewish See also:ritual the synonym See also:Hallel specially designates two See also:series of psalms, cxiii.–cxviii. and cxlvi.–cl., of which the former was sung at the three See also:great feasts —the See also:encaenia, and the new See also:moon, and the latter at the daily See also:morning See also:prayer . That the whole book is named " praises " is clearly due to the fact that it was the See also:manual of the Temple service of song, in which praise was the leading feature . But for an individual See also:psalm the usual name is Wimp (in the Bible only in titles of psalms), which is applicable to any piece designed to be sung to a musical accompaniment . Of this word ibaXµbs, " psalm," is a See also:translation, and in the See also:Greek Bible the whole book is called ifiaX,uol or 1liaXTiJptov.2 The title I/iaXµol or /3g3Aos i//aXpwv is used in the New Testament (See also:Luke xx . 42, See also:xxiv . 44; Acts i . 20), but in Heb. iv . 7 we find another title, namely " See also:David." See also:Hippolytus tells us that in his See also:time most Christians said " the Psalms of David," and believed the whole book to be his; but this title and belief are both of Jewish origin, for in 2 See also:Mace. ii . 13 See also:Tic Tov Aaetb means the Psalter, and the title of the apocryphal " Psalter of See also:Solomon " implies that the previously existing Psalter was ascribed to David . Jewish tradition does not make David the author of all the psalms; but as he was regarded as the founder and legislator of the Temple psalmody (I Chron., ut supra; See also:Ezra iii. lo; Neh. xii . 36, 45 seq.; Ecclus. xlvii . 8 seq.), so also he was held to have completed and arranged the whole book, though according to Talmudic tradition 3 he incorporated psalms by ten other authors, See also:Adam, See also:Melchizedek, See also:Abraham, See also:Moses, Heman, Jeduthun, See also:Asaph, and the three sons of Korah . With this it agrees that the titles of the psalms name no one later than Solomon, and even he is not recognized as a psalmodist by the most See also:ancient tradition, that of the LXX., which omits him from the title of Ps. cxxvii. and makes Ps. lxxii. be written not by him but of him . The details of the tradition of authorship show considerable variation; according to the Talmudic view Adam is author of the See also:Sabbath psalm, xcii., and Melchizedek of Ps. cx., while Abraham is identified with Ethan the Ezrahite (Ps. lxxxix.) . But, according to older Jewish tradition attested by See also:Origen,4 Ps. xcii. is by Moses, to whom are assigned Ps. xc.–c. inclusive, according to a See also:general See also:rule that all See also:anonymous pieces are by the same See also:hand with the nearest preceding psalm whose author is named; and Ps. ex., which by its title is Davidic, seems to have been given to Melchizedek to avoid the See also:dilemma of Matt. xxii . 41 seq . Origen's rule accounts for all the psalms except i. and ii., which were sometimes reckoned as one poem (Acts xiii . 33 in the Western See also:text; Origen; B . Berakhoth, f . 9b.), and appear to have been ascribed to David (Acts iv . 25) . The See also:opinion of See also:Jerome (Praef. in ps. heb.) and other See also:Christian writers that the See also:collector of the Psalter was Ezra does not seem to See also:rest on Jewish tradition . Nature and Origin of the Collection.—Whatever may be the value of the titles to individual psalms, there can be no question that the tradition that the Psalter was collected by David is not See also:historical ; i Hippol., ed . Lag., p . 188; Euseb . H.E. vi . 25, 2; Epiph . Mens et See also:Pond . § 23; Jerome's See also:preface to Psalt. juxta Hebraeos . 2 Similarly in the See also:Syriac Bible the title is mazmore . 2 The passages are collected in Kimhi's preface to his commentary on the Psalms, ed . See also:Schiller-Szinessy, See also:Cambridge (1883) . 4 Opp. ii . 514 seq., ed . See also:Rue; cf . Hippol. ut supra; Jerome, Ep. cxl . (ed . Cypr.), and Praef. in Mal . The question now arises: Was the collection a single See also:act or is the Psalter made up of several older collections ? And here we have first to observe that in the Hebrew text the Psalter is divided into five books, each of which closes with a See also:doxology . The See also:scheme of the whole is as follows: Book I., Ps. i.-x1i . ; all these are ascribed to David except i., ii., x . (which is really See also:part of ix.), xxxiii . (ascribed to David in LXX.) ; doxology, xli . 13 . Book II., Ps. xlii . Ixxii.: of these xlii.-xlix. are ascribed to the Korahites (xliii. being part of xlii.), 1. to Asaph, li.-lxxi. to David (except lxvi., lxvii., lxxi. anonymous; in LXX. the last two See also:bear David's name), Ixxii. to Solomon; doxology, Ixxii . 18, 19 followed by the subscription " The prayers of David the son of See also:Jesse are ended." Book III., Ps . Ixxiii.-lxxxix.; here lxxiii.-lxxxiii. bear the name of Asaph, lxxxiv., lxxxv., lxxxvii., lxxxviii. that of the Korahites, lxxxvi. of David, lxxxviii. of Heman, Ixxxix. of Ethan; doxology, Ixxxix . 52 . Book IV., Ps. xc.-evi.: all are anonymous except xc . (Moses), ci., ciii . (David),—LXX. gives also civ. to David; here the doxology is See also:peculiar, " Blessed be See also:Jehovah See also:God of See also:Israel from See also:everlasting and to everlasting . And let all the See also:people say See also:Amen, Hallelujah." Book V., Ps. evii.-cl.: of these cviii.-cx., cxxii., cxxiv., exxxi., cxxxiii., cxxxviii.-cxlv. are ascribed to David and cxxvii. to Solomon, and cxx.-cxxxiv. are See also:pilgrimage psalms, LXX. varies considerably from the Hebrew as to the psalms to be ascribed to David; the book closes with a See also:group of doxological psalms . The See also:division into five books was known to Hippolytus, but a closer examination of the doxologies shows that it does not represent the See also:original scheme of the Psalter; for, while the doxologies to the first three books are no part of the psalms to which they are attached, but really See also:mark the end of a book in a pious See also:fashion not uncommon in Eastern literature, that to book IV., with its See also:rubric addressed to the people, plainly belongs to the psalm, or rather to its liturgical execution, and does not therefore really mark the See also:close of a collection once See also:separate . In point of fact books IV. and V. have so many See also:common characters that there is every See also:reason to regard them as a single great group . Again, the See also:main part of books II. and III . (Ps. xlii.-lxxxiii.) is distinguished from the rest of the Psalter by habitually avoiding the name Jehovah (the See also:Lord) and using Elohim (God) instead, even in cases like Ps . 1 . 7, where " I am Jehovah thy God " of Exod. xx . 2 is quoted but changed very awkwardly to " I am God thy God." This is not due to the authors of the Individual psalms, but to an editor; for Ps . H. is only another recension of Ps. xiv., and Ps. lxa repeats part of Ps. xl., and here Jehovah is six times changed to Elohim, while the opposite See also:change happens but once . The Elohim psahns, then, have undergone a common editorial treatment, distinguishing them from the rest of the Psalter . And they make up the See also:mass of books II. and III., the remaining psalms, lxxxiv.-lxxxix., appearing to be a sort of appendix . But when we look at the Elohim psalms more nearly, -we see that they contain two distinct elements, Davidic psalms and psalms ascribed to the Levitical choirs (sons of Korah, Asaph) . The Davidic collection as we have it splits the Levitical psalms into two See also:groups and actually divides the Asaphic Ps . I. from the main Asaphic collection, lxxiii.-lxxxiii . This See also:order can hardly be original, especially as the Davidic Elohim psalms have a separate subscription (Ps . Ixxii . 20) . But if we remove them we get a continuous See also:body of Levitical Elohim psalms, or rather two collections, the first Korahitic and the second Asaphic, to which there have been added by way of appendix by a non-Elohistic editor a supplementary group of Korahite psalms and one psalm (certainly See also:late) ascribed to David . The formation of books IV. and V. is certainly later than the Elohistic redaction of hooks II. and III., for Ps. eviii. is made up of two Elohim psalms (,vii . 7-11,1x . 5-12) in the Elohistic See also:form, though the last two books of the Psalter are generally not of all its component parts . (R . H . K.) Jehovistic . We can thus distinguish the following steps in the redaction: (a) the formation of a Davidic collection (book I.) with a closing doxology; (b) a second Davidic collection (li.-Ixxii.) with doxology and subscription; (c) a twofold Levitical collection (xlii.-xlix.; 1., lxxiii.-lxxxiii.) ; (d) an Elohistic redaction and See also:combination of (b) and (c) ; (e) the addition of a non-Elohistic supplement to (d) with a doxology; (f) a collection later than (d), consisting of books IV. and V . And finally the anonymous psalms i., ii., which as. anonymous were hardly an original part of book I., may have been prefixed after the whole Psalter was completed . We see, too, that It is only in the latest collection (books IV., V.) that anonymity is the rule, and titles, especially titles with names, occur only sporadically . Elsewhere the titles run in series and correspond to the limits of older collections . Date of the Collection.—An inferior limit for the final collection is given by the See also:Septuagint translation . But this translation was not written all at once, and its See also:history is obscure; we only know from the See also:prologue to See also:Ecclesiasticus that the Hagiographa, and doubtless therefore the Psalter, were read in Greek in See also:Egypt about 130 B.C. or somewhat later., And the Greek Psalter, though it contains one apocryphal psalm at the close, is essentially the same as the Hebrew; there is nothing to suggest that the Greek was first translated from a less See also:complete Psalter and afterwards extended to agree with the extant Hebrew . It is therefore reasonable to hold that the Hebrew Psalter was completed and recognized as an authoritative collection See also:long enough before 13o B.C. to allow of its passing to the Greek-speaking See also:Jews in See also:Alexandria . Beyond this the See also:external See also:evidence for the completion of the collection does not carry us . (W . R . S.) But there is absolutely no See also:necessity for supposing that when the See also:grandson of See also:Ben Sira reached Egypt the Psalter had been translated into Greek for any considerable time . Indeed it is at least equally probable that it was the See also:recent translation of some of the poetical books of the Old Testament which fired him with a See also:desire to translate his grandfather's book, and perhaps add the See also:work of a member of the See also:family to the Bible of the See also:Egyptian Jews . It appears indeed from i Chron. xvi., 2 Chron. vi . 41, 42, that various psalms belonging to books IV. and V. were current in the time of the Chronicler . Unfortunately however it is impossible to date the book of See also:Chronicles with certainty . The See also:argument that the Chronicler must have been contemporary with the last persons named in his book is by no means convincing and on the other hand his See also:account of the Temple services, in which he seems to be describing the Temple of his own days, harmonizes far better with a date at the end of the third, or even in the second, See also:century B.C. than with the close of the See also:Persian or the beginning of the Greek See also:period . For the impression which we get from See also:Nehemiah's See also:memoirs is that in his days the community at See also:Jerusalem was in the main poverty-stricken, while See also:Malachi's exhortations to the people to pay their dues to the priests implies that in the See also:middle of the fifth century B.C. the Temple was by no means wealthy . But in the See also:comparative See also:peace and freedom of the 3rd century B.C. the See also:condition of Jerusalem was greatly ameliorated . See also:Wealth accumulated to such a degree that See also:Simon the son of Oniah was enabled practically to rebuild the Temple, and to maintain its services with a grandeur of ritual which they had probably never known before . It must be admitted that the gorgeousness of ritual described by the Chronicler is far more in See also:harmony with the days of Simon than with any previous See also:post-exilic period . How late the Chronicler wrote cannot perhaps be determined; but it is, at all events, impossible to prove that the author of Ecclesiasticus was acquainted with his work . Ben Sira indeed in his See also:list of worthies mentions Zerubbabel, See also:Joshua and Nehemiah; but Zerubbabel and Joshua he must have known from the books of See also:Haggai and See also:Zechariah, and he may well have been acquainted with that document See also:relating to Nehemiah which the Chronicler incorporated with his book . Ben Sira's omission of the name of Ezra rather militates against the supposition that he had the Chronicler's book before him when he wrote . The conflict between Saduceeism and the sopherir was hardly so intense in his days as to See also:warrant the supposition that he omitted the name of Ezra intentionally . Moreover, it is not certain that the psalms that the Chronicler quotes (xcvi., cv., cvi., cxxxii.) 1 The text of the passage is obscure and in part corrupt, but the Latin " cum multum temporis ibi fuissem " probably expresses the 1 This must be understood of the whole collection as completed, author's meaning . A friend has written to the author that for ovyXpovteas we ought perhaps to read svxvov yxpoviaas .
|
|
|
[back] BOOK PSALMS |
[next] PSALTERION PSALTERY |
There are no comments yet for this article.
Do not copy, download, transfer, or otherwise replicate the site content in whole or in part.
Links to articles and home page are encouraged.