the closely analogous growth of the Psalter. The prevailing form of the
superscriptions and the predominant use of the name _Jehovah_ or
_Elohim_ also aid in this difficult task. Psalms i. and ii. are
introductory to the entire book. Psalms iii-xli. all bear the Davidic
superscription and use the designation _Jehovah_ two hundred and
seventy-two times, but _Elohim_ only fifteen. The form and contents of
these psalms, as well as their position, suggest that they are the
oldest collection in the book. In the Greek version all the psalms of
the collection found in li-lxxii., excepting Psalm lxvi., which is
anonymous, and lxxii., which is attributed to Solomon, have also the
Davidic superscription. Although certain subsequent psalms are ascribed
to David, as, for example, lxxxvi., ci., and ciii., the close of the
collection, is the significant epilogue (lxxii. 20), _the prayers of
David the son of Jesse are ended._
[Sidenote: _Meaning and value of the superscriptions_ ]
Before the approximate date of these collections can be determined the
significance of the Davidic title needs interpretation. In the Hebrew
version, this title is borne by seventy-three psalms. Two are ascribed
to Solomon (lxxii. and cxxvii.), one to Moses (xc.), and twenty-four to
the members of the post-exilic guilds of temple singers. The
superscriptions of the Greek and Syrian versions contain many variations
from those in the Hebrew. This is probably due to the fact that
superscriptions are usually added by later scribes in whose minds the
question of authorship first became prominent. In earlier Hebrew the
phrase commonly translated _Psalm of David_ would more naturally mean a
_psalm for David_ or _dedicated_ or _attributed to David._ The latter
appears to have been its original significance. Like the title,
_Proverbs of Solomon,_ it was used to distinguish an ancient poem,
which, being a psalm, was naturally ascribed to David, and to him later
Judaism, in common with the New Testament writers, attributed all psalm
literature. A detailed study of the superscriptions soon demonstrates
that the majority of them represent only the conjectures of scribes who
were guided by current traditions or suggestions embodied in the psalms
themselves. In this manner, to Solomon, the builder of the temple, is
ascribed Psalm cxxvii., because it refers to the building of the house
in its opening verse. The Greek version even attributes to David Psalm
xcvi., which, it states, was written _when the temple was being built
after the captivity._
[Sidenote: _David's relation to the psalter_]
Since the superscriptions to the Psalter were only very late additions,
the question still remains, What was the basis of the late Jewish
tradition that makes David the father of the psalm literature, as was
Solomon of the wisdom, Moses of the legal, and Enoch of the
apocalyptical? The other Old Testament books give no direct answer. They
tell us, however, that the warrior king was skilled in playing the lyre,
and we are aware that to this, in antiquity, an improvised accompaniment
was usually sung. We also have the account of David's touching elegies
over the death of Saul and Jonathan and of Abner (II Sam. i., iii. 33,
34). Moreover, the early historical books vividly portray the faults of
David, the limitations which he shared in common with his
contemporaries, and his deeply religious spirit; but they leave the
question of his relation to the Psalter to be settled by the testimony
of the individual psalms. Here the evidence is not conclusive. It is
clear that many of the psalms attributed by tradition to him were
written in the clearer light of later prophetic teaching and amid very
different circumstances from those which surrounded Israel's early king.
Still it would be dogmatic to assert that nothing from his lips is to be
found in the Psalter; and to point out with assurance those passages and
psalms which must be Davidic is quite as unwarrantable.
[Sidenote: _Evidence of pre-exilic elements in the Psalter_]
The Psalter is clearly the repository of that which was best in the
earlier spiritual life and thought of the race. While there are no
direct references to songs in connection with the pre-exilic Jewish
temple, Amos (v. 23) found them in use at the sanctuary at Bethel; and
from Psalm cxxxvii. 3, 4 it would appear that the exiles in Babylonia
were acquainted with certain _songs of Zion_ or _songs of Jehovah_.
Treasured in the hearts of the people, and attributed, perhaps even by
the time of the exile, as a whole to David, they constituted the
basis of the earliest collections of psalms, which, as we have noted,
practically without exception bear the Davidic superscription. The date
of each individual psalm, however, must be determined independently on
the basis of its own testimony, although the historical allusions are
few and the data in many cases are far from decisive.
[Sidenote: _Approximate date of the earliest collections_]
Just when the earliest collections, found in iii.-xli. and li.-lxxii.,
were made is a comparatively unimportant yet difficult question to
decide. Probably the rebuilding of the temple in 516 B.C. was one of the
great incentives. The example of the Babylonians, who possessed a large
and rich psalm literature, may also have exerted an indirect influence.
At least it is certain that the guilds of temple singers and the song
service became increasingly prominent in the religious life of the
Jewish community which grew up about the restored temple. The presence
of alphabetical psalms, as, for example, ix., x., xxv., xxxiv., xxxvii.,
in the earliest collection suggests also the leisure of the exile. The
historical background of many of these psalms is clearly the exile and
the long period of distress that followed. They voice the experiences of
the poor, struggling band of the pious, who, living in the midst of
oppressors, found in Jehovah alone their refuge and their joy. Some of
these psalms also reflect the prophetic teachings of Jeremiah (_e.g._,
xvi., xxxix) and of Isaiah xl.-lxvi. In general their attitude toward
sacrifice is that of the prophets:
For thou desirest not sacrifice;
Else would I give it.
Thou delightest not in burnt offering.
The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit;
A broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.
Religion is defined in the terms of life and acts. Ceremonialism has not
yet cast its chilling influence over the heart of the nation. Therefore
the earliest collections may, with considerable assurance, be assigned
to a date not later than the days of Nehemiah (about 400 B.C.).
[Sidenote: _Later collections_]
Psalms xlii.-l. and lxxiii-lxxxiii. constitute a collection of Levitical
hymns. If we may follow the indications of their superscriptions,
they consist of two originally distinct groups, the one, xlii.-xlix.,
associated with and possibly at first collected and preserved by the
post-exilic guild of temple singers, known as the sons of Korah, and the
other, l., lxxiii.-lxxxiii., similarly attributed to Asaph, the guild of
temple singers, mentioned first in the writings of the Greek period. In
these two groups the priests and Levites and the liturgy are prominent.
Psalms lxxxiv.-lxxxix. constitute a short Levitical supplement.
The remainder of the Psalter is also made up of originally smaller
collections, as, for example, the Psalms of Ascent or the Pilgrim Psalms
(cxx.-cxxxiv.), and the Hallelujah Psalms (cxi.-cxiii. and cxlvi.-cl.).
Some of the latter come perhaps from the Jews of the dispersion. Each
collection appears to represent a fresh gleaning of the same or slightly
different fields, incorporating ancient with contemporary psalms, and,
as has been noted, not infrequently including some already found in
earlier collections.
[Sidenote: _Completion of the Psalter_]
Certain of the psalms, such as lxxiv., lxxix., lxxxiii., seem clearly
to reflect the horrors of the Maccabean struggle (169-165 B.C.). Later
Jewish literature bears testimony that in the last two centuries before
Christ psalm writing increased rather than decreased (_cf. e.g._, Psalms
of Solomon). Certainly the experiences through which the Jews passed
during the middle of the second century were of a nature to evoke psalms
similar to those in the Psalter. The probabilities, therefore, are that
the Psalter, in its final form, is, like the book of Daniel, one of
the latest writings in the Old Testament. It was possibly during the
prosperous reign of Simon, when the temple service was enriched and
established on a new basis, that its canon was finally closed.
[Sidenote: _The book of Lamentations_]
The fact that they all gather about a definite event in Israel's
history, and probably antedate the majority of the psalms in the
Psalter, explains why the little collection of lyrical poems, known as
the book of Lamentations, never found a place beside the kindred psalms
(_e.g._, Pss. xlii., xliii) in the larger book. Their theme is the
Babylonian exile and the horrors and distress that it brought to the
scattered members of the Jewish race. Their aim is prophetic, that is,
to point out and confess the guilt of the nation and its dire
consequences. They reflect the teachings of both Jeremiah and Ezekiel.
While it is not strange that later tradition attributed the collection
to the first of these prophets, its contents do not support the
conjecture. Four out of the five poems are alphabetical, and distinctly
different points of view are represented. Chapters ii. and iv. probably
come from the middle of the Babylonian exile, and to the remainder must
be assigned a still later period.
[Sidenote: _The national and individual element in the Psalter_]
The Psalter, with its natural appendix, the book of Lamentations, was
the song and prayer book of the Jewish community. A majority of the
psalms, and especially those in the latter part of the book, were
doubtless originally intended for liturgical use. Many, particularly
where the first person singular is used, are to be interpreted
collectively, for here, as often in the book of Lamentations, the
psalmist is speaking in behalf of the community. Others have been
adapted to liturgical ends. But in the final analysis it is the
experience and emotions of the individual soul that find expression
throughout all the psalms. Since these experiences and emotions were
shared in common by all right-minded members of the community, it was
natural that they should in time be employed in the liturgy.
[Sidenote: _E pluribus unum_]
Again, as we review the history of the Psalter, we are impressed with
the many sides of Israel's life and human experience that it represents.
Not one, but perhaps fifty or a hundred, inspired souls, laymen,
prophets, priests, sages, kings, and warriors, have each clothed the
divine truth that came to them or to their generation in exquisite
language and imagery, and given it thus to their race and humanity.
Successive editors have collected and combined the noblest of these
psalms, and the Psalter is the result. The exact date of each psalmist
and editor is comparatively unimportant, for though differing widely in
origin and theme, they are all bound together by a common purpose and
a common belief in the reality and the immediate presence of God. All
nature and history and life are to them but the manifestation of his
justice and mercy and love. In direct communion with the God whom they
personally knew, they found the consolation and peace and joy that
passeth all understanding, even though the heathen raged and their foes
plundered and taunted them. To that same haven of rest they still pilot
the world's storm-tossed mariners.
XIII
THE FORMATION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON
[Sidenote: _Israel's literature at the beginning of the fourth century
before Christ_]
Could we have studied the scriptures of the Israelitish race about 400
B.C., we should have classified them under four great divisions: (1)
The prophetic writings, represented by the combined early Judean,
Ephraimite, and late prophetic or Deuteronomic narratives, and their
continuation in Samuel and Kings, together with the earlier and exilic
prophecies; (2) the legal, represented by the majority of the Old
Testament laws, combined with the late priestly history; (3) the
wisdom, represented by the older small collections of proverbs; (4) the
devotional or liturgical, represented by Lamentations and the earlier
collections of psalms.
[Sidenote: _The combining of the prophetic and priestly histories_]
Even before all the Old Testament books were written, the work of
canonization began; before the first large canon was adopted, the
prophetic and priestly narratives, and with them the earlier and later
laws, were combined. This amalgamation was the work of a late priestly
editor. The Pentateuch and its immediate sequel, Joshua, is the result.
[Sidenote: _The method of combining_]
A study of these books makes clear the editor's method. Naturally he
gave the late priestly versions the precedence. He placed, therefore,
its version of the creation first,--a position that it well deserves.
Probably as a result of this arrangement the older and more primitive
prophetic version of Genesis ii. 4a-25 was somewhat abridged, for it
begins with the picture of a level plain, watered by a daily mist, and
is immediately followed by the account of the creation of man. Genesis
iii. and iv. are taken entirely from the prophetic, and practically all
of v. from the priestly, group of narratives. Confronted by two variant
versions of the flood, he joined them together into a closely knit
narrative; but all the elements of both versions are so faithfully
preserved that when they are again separated, behold! the two originally
complete and self-consistent versions reappear. The story of Noah,
the first vineyard-keeper, in ix. 20-27, is taken entirely from the
prophetic history, but in x. two distinct lists of the nations are
joined together. All the story of the tower of Babel in xi. 1-9 is from
the prophetic, while the genealogical list in the remainder of the
chapter is from the priestly history. The patriarchal and subsequent
narratives are likewise combined with, the same remarkable skill.
[Sidenote: _Later biblical analogies_]
Thus the first six Old Testament books were given their final form. The
method in general was the same as that followed by the authors of the
First and Third Gospels in their use of Matthew's Sayings of Jesus and
the original Mark narrative, or by the authors of Samuel, Kings, and
Chronicles in their citations from the older sources. In his close
fusion of three or four parallel narratives the editor's work resembled
most closely that of Tatian, who thus combined the four Gospels in his
_Diatessaron_. So far as we are able to observe, the final editor of
the Hexateuch preserved, like Tatian, most of the material in his older
sources, except where a parallel version verbally duplicated another.
The prophetic and priestly narratives also followed lines so distinctly
different that cases of duplication were comparatively few.
[Sidenote: _Deep significance of the work of the later editors_]
To the latest editor of the early narratives we owe the preservation of
some or the oldest and most valuable sections of the Old Testament. In
that age and land of perishable writing materials, the prevailing method
of compilation was one of the effective means whereby the important
portions of primitive records were handed down in practically their
original form. It is well that we are beginning to understand its
significance in the realization of the divine purpose. Important beyond
words, although often overlooked, were the services of the faithful
editors who without the slightest desire for personal glory or reward,
other than the perpetuation of truth, carefully selected, condensed, and
combined material gleaned from earlier and fuller sources. To them is
due the marvellous preservation of our Old Testament, To the honored
rôle of the prophets and apostles, therefore, let us add the anonymous
redactors.
[Sidenote: _Date of the beginning of the cannonization of the Law_]
The final editors were the immediate precursors of those who formed the
successive canons of the Old Testament. Indeed, between the work of the
former and the latter there is no clear line of demarcation. A period
shortly after 400 B. c. is the date usually accepted for the work of
the final editor of the Pentateuch; the canonization of the law, which
included these five books, is dated between 400 and 300 B.C. The real
canonization of Israel's laws had, however, begun much earlier. The
primitive decalogue, represented by Exodus xxxiv., and probably from
the first associated with Moses, appears, in the earliest periods of
Israel's history, to have enjoyed a canonical authority. The primitive
accounts, in Exodus xix., of the establishment of the covenant
by Jehovah with his people mark the real beginning of the process of
canonization,--a process, that is, of attributing to certain laws a
unique and commanding authority.
[Sidenote: _Popular acceptance and promulgation of the earlier codes_]
Likewise the successive civil, humane, and ceremonial decalogues appear
from the days of the united kingdom to have occupied a similar position.
Primarily this was probably due to the fact that each was based upon a
divine _torah_ or decision, received from Jehovah through the priestly
oracle. The public reading and promulgation of the Deuteronomic laws in
the days of Josiah, with the attestation of the prophets and the solemn
adoption by the people, was an act of canonization far more formal than
the final acceptance of the New Testament writings by the Council of
Carthage.
[Sidenote: _Adoption of the late priestly law_]
The next great stage in the canonization of the law is recorded in
Nehemiah x. Then the representatives of the Jewish community _entered
into a solemn obligation and took oath to walk in God's law, which was
given by Moses the servant of God, and to observe to do all the commands
of Jehovah our Lord and his ordinances and his statutes_ (v. 29.) This
action appears to be the historical basis of the fanciful and incredible
Jewish traditions concerning the work of the Great Synagogue and the
authority of Ezra. The new law thus adopted was evidently the one
gradually developed and finally formulated by the Jewish priests in
Babylonia. It was accepted, as was the earlier Deuteronomic code,
because it met the needs and appealed to the moral and religions sense
of those by whom it was adopted.
[Sidenote: _Acceptance of the completed Torah_]
To set completely aside the Deuteronomic lawbook and the primitive
decalogue of Exodus xx.-xxiii., already in force among the Jews of
Palestine, was impossible and unnecessary. Hence, as we have noted, it
was the task of some editor of the next generation to combine these
and the earlier prophetic histories with the late priestly law and its
accompanying history. Naturally this whole collection was still called
the _Torah_ or _Law_ and was at once accepted as canonical by the Jews.
This step was also most natural because their interests all centred
about the ritual, and for two centuries the dominant tendency had been
to exalt the sanctity of the written law.
[Sidenote: _Date of the final canonization of the Law_]
It is possible to fix approximately the date of this first edition of
the Old Testament writings, since the Samaritans adopted and still
retain simply the Pentateuch and an abbreviated edition of Joshua as
their scriptures. Although Josephus, following a late Jewish tradition,
dates the Samaritan schism at about 330 B.C., the contemporary evidence
of Nehemiah xiii. 28 suggests that it was not long after 400. It is
therefore safe to conclude that by 350 B.C. the first five books of our
Old Testament had not only been singled out of the larger literature
of the race, but were regarded as possessing a unique sanctity and
authority.
[Sidenote: _Principles of canonization_]
As the name _Law_ suggests, the chief reason for this was the fact that
these five books embodied laws long since accepted as binding. The
second reason was probably because they were by current tradition
ascribed to Moses. The third, and not the least, was, doubtless, because
they met the need felt by the community for a unified and authoritative
system of laws and for an authentic record of the earlier history of
their race, especially that concerning the origin of their beloved
institutions.
[Sidenote: _Evidence that the Law was first canonized_]
The priority of the canon of the law is also proved by the fact that,
although it contains some of the later Old Testament writings, it stands
first, not only in position but in the esteem of the Jewish race.
Furthermore, it became in time the designation of all the Old Testament
canonical writings. The term _Law_ is thus used in the New Testament
(_e.g._, John x. 34, xii. 34; I Cor. xiv. 21), in the Talmud, and by the
rabbis, indicating that the later groups of historical, prophetic, and
poetical books were simply regarded as supplements.
[Sidenote: _Canonization of the prophetic writings_]
The history of the canonization of the next group, known as the
_Prophets_, is very obscurely recorded, and this largely because it
reached its culmination in the Greek period, concerning which we have
only the most meagre information. Here analogy with the history of
the New Testament is helpful. The same influences which led the early
Christians to add the Epistles and Acts undoubtedly operated upon the
minds of the Jews. The Law represented only a limited period in their
national and religious history. But the addition of the early prophetic
and legal histories to the detailed laws prepared the way for the
expansion of the canon. This included first, the four historical books,
Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings, with the exception of Ruth. These
were designated as the _Former Prophets_. Thus even the later Jews
recognized their true character and authorship. The second division of
the _Prophets_ included Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Book of the
Twelve, which contained the minor prophets.
[Sidenote: _Evidence that the historico-prophetic books were first added
to the Law_]
The order of the book and the probabilities of the situation suggest
that the _Former Prophets_, since they were the immediate sequel of the
prophetic histories of the Pentateuch, and recorded the deeds of such
heroes as David, Solomon, and Isaiah, were added first. That they also
bear the marks of late priestly revision, is direct evidence of the
esteem in which they were held by the late priestly school that
completed the canon of the Law. They therefore may have been added as
early as 300 B.C. They were certainly known to the author of Chronicles,
as his many quotations from them show, although it is difficult to see
how he would have felt as free as he does to substitute the testimony of
later tradition, if they were regarded as equally sacred with the Law.
[Sidenote: _Reverence for the prophetic word_]
The reference to the prediction of Jeremiah, in the opening verse
of Ezra, suggests the reverence with which the author of Chronicles
regarded the words of this prophet. The post-exilic Jews never ceased
to revere the prophetic word. The popular belief, current in the Greek
period, that the prophets had ceased to speak only deepened their
reverence for the teachings of Moses' successors (Deut. xviii. 15-19).
The devotion of the later scribes is evinced by the scores of glosses
which they have added to the older prophecies. It is manifest,
therefore, how strong was the tendency, even in priestly circles, to add
the Prophets to the Law.
[Sidenote: _Date of completion of the prophetic canon_]