PSALMS

the prep, 'al (see under No. 1), and the phrase has been supposed to mean that the Psalm was to be sung to the accompaniment of the Gittite instrument (cf. Nos. 15 and ? 16), whatever that may have been, or to the Gittite tune (cf. No. 1). If the word was originally pronounced 'Git-toth' (pi. of gath^ 'a wine-press'), the note may direct that the Psalms were to be sung to some vintage melody (cf . No. 3).

8- Biggaion. — ^The word thus transUterated in 9'^ (RV) is translated in 92^ 'a solemn sound' (RV), 'murmuring sound' (Driver), and in 19^* 'meditation.' In 9^^ it seems to be a musical note.

9. Jeduthun. — On the analogy of 'of David,' etc. (see above), the title in Ps 39 should run 'of the sons of Korah, of Jeduthun.' In Pss 62. 77 the preposition prefixed to the term is ^al (cf. No. 1), and by analogy Jeduthun might be the name of a tune or an instrument. But this is very uncertain; see art. Jeditthun.

10. Jonath-elem-rehokim (Ps 56). The Heb. conso-nants are most naturally translated ' the dove of the distant terebinths'; less probably, but as the tradition embodied in the vocalized Heb. text suggests, ' the dove of the silence of them that are distant.' The note is to be explained as No. 1.

11. MahaIath(Ps53),MahaIathLeannoth (Ps88). The words are very ambiguous and obscure, but the fact that in both Psalms the prep, 'al precedes, relates these notes to the group of which No. 1 is typical.

12. Maschil (Pss 32. 42-45. 52-55. 74-78. 88. 89. 142). The term describes the character of the poem, but whether its precise meaning is 'a meditation' (Briggs) or 'a cun-ning Psalm' (Kirkpatrick), or something else, cannot be determined with certainty. See also p. 771*.

13. Michtam (Pss 16. 56-60, also perhaps in the original text of Is 38^)is a term like the last , but of still more uncertain meaning. The Rabbinical interpretation — a golden (poem) — though adopted by Briggs, is quite \mconvincing.

14. Muth-labben (Ps 9). The Heb. consonants may mean 'Death whitens,' and this may have been the com-mencement of a song which gave a name to a tune; cf . No. 1. But it is not unreasonable to suspect the text, as many have done.

16. Neginoth (AV m Pss 4. 6. 54. 55. 67. 76) and Neginah (Ps 61) . The words thus, in excess of caution, transliterated by AV, are correctly translated by RV 'stringed instru-ments' (Ps 61 'song'), and so even by AV in Hab 3^^.

16. Nehiloth (Ps 5), of ten supposed to mean * wind instru-ments' (cf. No. 15). But. this is qmte doubtful. Uncertain, too, is the view that the word indicates a tune; -the preposi-tionCeOthat precedes is not thesame as that which generally introduces what appear to be names of tunes elsewhere (cf . No. 1); but cf. No. 19.

17. Sheminith. See No. 2.

18. Shiggaion (Ps 7). 'The pi. of this word (ShigionotK) occurs in Hab 3', possibly by error for A^effinoi^i (cf. No.l5), which perhaps stood in the text from which the Greek ver-sion was made. The root from which the word is derived means 'to go astray 'or 'to reel' (as, e.^., from drunkenness). Hence, since Ewald, many have conjectured that Shiggaion means *a wild, passionate song, with rapid changes of rhythm' (Oxf.Lex.). The meaning really remains entirely uncertain.

19 . Shoshannim (Pss 45. 69) , Shushan-eduth (Ps 60) , and Shoshannim-eduth (Ps 80) appear to be different ways of citing the same song to the tune of which these Psalms were to be sung. The preposition used before these words is 'al (cf.No.l),exceptmPs 80, where itis'eZ, which in some cases IS used interclmngeably with 'at. It is curious that Psalms so different as 45 and 69 should be set to the same tune. Ps 80 cites the first two words of the poem, ' (Like) lilies (or rather anemones) is the Testimony (or Law)'; Pss 45. 69 the fiist word only: -and Ps 60 apparently was variant, ' (Like) a hly ' (singular for plural), etc.

3. Dates of the various collections. — Is it possible to determine the dates at which any of these collections of Psalms were made? Obviously they are earlier than the completion of the Psalter, i.e. than about B.C. 100 (see above) ; obviously also the collections were later than the latest Psalm which they originally contained. One or more Psalms in all the collections show more or less generally admitted signs of being post-exilic. The various collections therefore which we have in the Psalter were compiled between the 6th and the 2nd centuries B.C. By arguments which cannot here be reproduced, Robertson Smith (OTJC ch. vii.) reached the following conclusions in detail. The first Davidio

PSALMS

collection (Pss 3-41) was compiled about the time of Ezra and Nehemiah; the second Davidic collection (Pss 57-72) in the 4th cent.; the Asaphite (Pss 50. 73-83) and Korahite (Pss 42-49) collections between B.C. 430 and 330. Dr. Briggs places the Korahitio and Asaphite collections somewhat later — after b.c. 332; the Elohistic Psalter (Pss 42-83) and the chief musician's collection in the 3rd cent. b.c. But whatever the value of these detailed conclusions, which are not all very secure, one general fact of much importance already stands out: the period between the Exile and the 1st cent. b.c. was marked by much activity in the collection and editing of Psalms; and this, apart from the dates of individual Psalms, is significant for the part played by the Psalms in the religious lite of the post-exilic community.

4. Dates of individual Psalms . — From the collections we pass to the difficult and much discussed question of the dates of the individual Psalms. All that will be possible here is to point out certain general lines of evidence, with one or two illustrations in detail. // the detailed conclusions with reference to the collections are sound, a minimum date is fixed for many Psalms: e.g. Pss 3-41 (except the untitled Ps 33) are not later than about the time of Ezra and Nehemiah; Pss 42-49 and SO. 73 and 83 not later (on Robertson Smith's theory) than b.c. 330, and so on. The collec-tions are indeed post-exilic, but in itself that need not prevent even the whole of the Psalms being pre-exilic: the collections might be post-exilic hymn-books composed entirely of ancient hymns. As a matter of fact, not all the Psalms are pre-exilic; many of the individual Psalms are somewhat clearly of post-exilic origin; indeed, there is a fairly general consensus of opinion that the majority, a considerable body of opinion that the great majority, of the Psalms are post-exilic. Signs of exilic or post-exilic origin are: (1) Allusions to the Exile or the desolation of Zion, as a present or past fact, as the case may be: see e.g. 51"'- 89"-»i 102"' is 106" 107«. 126' 137' 147^. The profanation of the Temple by the heathen alluded to in Pss 74^79 may refer rather to the events of Maccabsean times (b.c. 165) than to 586. (2) Other allusions to social and political conditions, such as the frequent division of the Jews into religious parties, with the use of terms like 'the poor,' 'the pious' (Cftostdim) as party names; but this and other such allusions are differently interpreted and weighed by different scholars. (3) Language such as that of, e.g., Pss 116. 139; style and language in many other Psalms is less conclusive though (granted certain previous conclusions) not without weight. (4) Dependence upon exilic and post-exilic writings: e.g. Pss 93. 96-100 almost certainly, and Ps 57 most probably, imply familiarity on the part of the writer with much of Is 40-66. (5) The presence of certain religious ideas which were not developed till late in the history of Israel's religion. There is much variety of judgment as to the niimber of Psalms and the particular Psalms shown by these criteria to be late, but, as previously stated, it is ad-mittedly large. Strictly speaking, indeed, these criteria determine the date of those sections only to which they apply, not necessarily that of the entire Psalm; and if it can be shown that the obviously post-exilic sections in any particular Psalm are interpolations, the rest of the Psalm may be (but, of course, by no means necessarily is) pre-exilic. Dr. Briggs in his Commentary has carried the hypothesis of interpolation far, using as his test certain theories of metre and strophe.

What, then, are the positive criteria tor pre-exilic Psalms or pre-exilic elements in Psalms which may show in parts obvious signs of post-exilic origin? Failing such criteria, the Psalms cannot be shown to be considerably earlier than the post-exilic collections in which they have come down to us. The criterion of pre-exilic date most relied on is an allusion to the king; from the fall of Judah in B.C. 586 down to B.C. 105, when Aristobulus i. assumed the title of king, there was no native king of Judah.

772