<Home
[The Biblical Reader]
Who Wrote the Psalms of
David?
Sam A. Smith
Since
the advent of modern higher criticism the authorship of some 78 psalms
traditionally ascribed to King David has been challenged. While critical
scholars do not themselves agree on the details as to which, if any, of these
psalms are the work of David, they do at least agree that the ascriptions of
authorship contained in the titles of seventy-three of these psalms are
generally without historical validity. It is the purpose of this paper to
explore the arguments traditionally employed in denying Davidic authorship to
these Psalms and to demonstrate that the real basis for higher critical
objections is not historical evidence, but rather the limitations of a
theologically and philosophically imposed grid which can only conceive of the
Scripture as having originated according to a narrowly defined naturalistic and
evolutionary model. Since the issue has been thoroughly hashed already, it will
not be our intent here to present new arguments. Rather, it is the purpose of
this paper to make the existing research, which is somewhat scattered, more
accessible to those interested in the very important question of, “Who wrote
the Davidic Psalms?”
All
but thirty-four of the one hundred and fifty psalms have some type of
superscription (i.e., prefatory title), which in the Hebrew text appears
as the first verse of the psalm, but which in the English Bible appears as an
unenumerated title.1 These titles may classify the psalm as being of
a certain type, give musical notation, describe the circumstances surrounding
the composition of the psalm, or indicate authorship. Of particular importance
is the usefulness of the titles in determining authorship. The title “le
dawid” (“of David”) is attached to seventy-three of the psalms and has
traditionally been taken to indicate Davidic authorship. However, since the
advent of modern higher criticism with its evolutionary assumptions, the
antiquity, meaning, and accuracy of these titles has been challenged. E. J.
Young summaries the modern scholarly opinion.
For
the most part, the titles are rejected by modern criticism as being of
practically no value. It is rather generally held that the titles were added at
a much later time, and that the titles which refer to an event in David’s life
were simply taken from the books of Samuel. Further, the basic philosophy of
the development of Israel’s religion which underlies so much of the modern
treatment of the Psalter necessarily precludes attributing much value to the
witness of the titles.2
Determining the reliability of these
titles is crucial to the question of authorship as has long been recognized.
Eiselen pointed this out when he commented: “The attitude with reference to the
date and authorship of the psalms is determined largely by the attitude toward
the psalm titles.”3 Unquestionably, the validity of the psalm titles
is the central issue in the discussion of Davidic authorship.
The
numerous arguments raised to Davidic authorship of the psalms so titled
basically fall into two categories—both of which relate directly to the titles
themselves: 1) It is suggested that the title “le dawid” does not denote
authorship but simply the name of a collection of psalms. According to this
view, the psalms were considered to be “suitable for David,” i.e.,
fitting his character or circumstances, but not authored by him. 2) It is
asserted that the titles, though indeed ascribing authorship to David, are
historically unreliable because they ascribe Davidic authorship to psalms that
internal evidence indicates cannot be Davidic in origin.
Since
Davidic authorship is, for the most part, dependant on the meaning of ledawid
(“of David”) in the psalm titles; and since a failure to sustain this title as
referring to Davidic authorship would preempt much other discussion, this
objection will be considered first. Rogerson and McKay provide an introduction
to this objection:
The
meaning of the Hebrew phrase “le dawid” has been much discussed.
Traditionally, it was taken to denote Davidic authorship. In modern
scholarship, it has often been taken to mean ‘belonging to the Davidic
collection’, while a third view is that the phrase was meant by those who added
it to denote authorship, but that these editors were not guided by any reliable
tradition. There is probably some truth in all three of these views.5
In
an earlier work, Eiselen states the following:
This
view, as the whole discussion of the question of authorship on the basis of
the psalm titles, rests upon the interpretation of the expression “of David,”
“of Asaph,” etc., as implying authorship. It is not impossible, however, that
in some cases at least, these phrases were not intended to indicate authorship
at all. In some instances the Hebrew preposition le may have been used with the
meaning “belonging to,” that is, implying possession rather than authorship.
Thus the psalms credited to the sons of Korah may have been derived from a
collection in the possession of the Levitical family. In the same way, the
psalms ascribed to Asaph, Ethan, and Heman may have been derived from
collections in the possession of families or guilds bearing the names of these
men. Similarly, the expression “of David,” as found In the psalm titles at the
present time, may have been used to suggest that the psalms so marked were
taken from a collection bearing the title “Psalms of David,” perhaps because the
nucleus of the collection was thought to be Davidic. In other cases, the phrase
may be used with the meaning, “suitable for David,” that is, a psalm befitting
character or circumstances of David. In either case, the interpretation
implying authorship would be due to a later misunderstanding of an ambiguous
Hebrew phrase.6
Eissfeldt,
who takes the position that the titles refer to compilers rather than authors,
indicates the lack of solid evidence for his position when he says:
The
most important of the names of ‘compilers’ are those of David, to whom 73
psalms are ascribed, and the Korahites and Asaph, both of which
appear twelve times in the titles. These names are always introduced with the
particle le, which may mean by, for, or concerning.
There is thus room for various interpretations. The notes lb` l, lkrt,
l’qht which appear at the top of some of the clay tablets from Ugarit,
where the l is certainly not followed by the name of the author, but by
the name of the hero of the poem—Ba`al, Keret, Aqhat, may lead us to the
assumption that the l of these psalm titles is to be understood
similarly, and not, as was formerly the predominating view, as l auctoris.
Nevertheless the traditional interpretation cannot in fact be abandoned, in any
rate in the sense that the tradition as we have it regards the names following
the l as denoting the compiler, or the performers. This later could be
considered for the Korahites and Asaph, and does in fact denote something very
different from the first possibility. In the case of David the point is
confirmed by the fact that in thirteen cases there is added to the expression by
David a note on the occasion on which he is supposed to have composed or
recited this poem (Pss. iii, vii, xviii, xxxiv, Ii, lii, liv, lvi, lvii, lix,
lx, lxiii, cxlii). In one or two cases, as for example with Ps. xviii, the
possibility does not seem to be quite excluded that we have a composition which
really goes back to David. But this is not really the case with the 73 psalms
ascribed to David. Here the ascription to David is rather to be explained on
the grounds that latter generations, as the books of Chronicles show (I-xxii, 2‑xxix,
5), regarded him as the originator of their entire cultic organisation [sic],
and so also as the composer of their temple songs.7
If
Eissfeldt’s view is taken as a fair representation of the position of modern
higher criticism, then two points become obvious: 1) There is no lexical or
syntactical reason for rejecting Davidic authorship. If le dawid can
represent “compilers” it can certainly represent authorship. Rejection of
Davidic authorship then is an assumption based purely on other criteria
(historical or theological). 2) The view of modern criticism stands in contrast
to the New Testament record, which directly ascribes seven psalms to
David—which name cannot be understood as representing a compiler (Psa. 2 cf.
Acts 4:25; Psa. 16 cf. Acts 2:25-31; Psa. 32 cf. Rom. 4:6; Psa.
69 cf. Acts 1:15-20; Psa. 95 cf. Heb. 4:7; Psa. 109 cf.
Acts 1:16-20; Psa. 110 cf. Luke 20:41-44).8
One
strong indication that le dawid was intended to indicate authorship is
the inclusion of the historical allusions in thirteen of the titles (Psa. 3; 7;
18; 34; 51; 52; 54; 56; 57; 59; 60; 63; 142. Concerning these historical
allusions, Young says:
In
the Hebrew titles the phrase ledhavidh occurs, and this phrase while it need
not necessarily refer to authorship is generally regarded as so referring. The
contents of some of the titles…refer to some event in David’s life, and here
the phrase ledhavidh is clearly intended to indicate authorship by David. If
that is the case here, it would seem also to be the case with the other
occurrences of the phrase. The titles, therefore do ascribe the
authorship of many Psalms to David.9
It
would seem that while one might argue the point that some of the le dawid expressions
may not have been intended as claims of authorship, the expression is clearly
used as such in numerous instances. That fact combined with the obvious antiquity
of the titles should be given due consideration with respect to the question of
authorship. Indeed, it seems reasonable on the grounds of consistency of usage
to assume an authorship credit for all of the le dawid expressions
unless it can be demonstrated on solid historical grounds that such could not
be true.
Modern
higher criticism has deduced a number of arguments intended to demonstrate that
the psalm titles place the psalms in historical settings inconsistent with their
internal characteristics. The following arguments are a synthesis
based on Driver and Eissfeldt.11
a)
Psalms which address the king directly or refer to him in the third person
cannot have been written by David since he was himself, the king (e.g.,
Psa. 20; 21; 61; 63; 72; 110).
b)
Some psalms contain Aramaisms, which evidence a later date.12
c)
Some psalms have stylistic affinities with psalms thought to be of a later date
(e.g., 9-10; 15; 34; 37; 145).
d)
Some psalms do not correctly reflect David’s historical situation or personal
character. Note the following examples. 1) Some imply the present
existence of the Temple (5; 27; 28; 63; 68; 69; 101; 138). 2) It is
questionable whether the expression “holy hill” would have been applied to Zion
prior to the establishment of the sanctuary there (3; 15; 24; 26; 27).
3) Some imply that the time in which the psalmist lived was an evil time
when the godly were oppressed—which does not accurately describe David’s time.
4) Some of the psalms refer to the king or to David in a way that would
seem unnatural for him to write about himself (20; 21; 61). 5) Some of the
psalms express a devotion and depth of insight and theology too advanced for
David’s time.
However,
consider the following problems with those arguments.
a)
That David would not have referred to himself in the third person is incorrect.
In 2 Samuel 23:1-7 are recorded “the last words of David.” In verse 1
David refers to himself by name in the third person and subsequently employs
the third person verb (huqam) to describe how he was “raised on high,”
he then refers to himself again in the third person as mesiah elohe,
“[the] anointed of God.” It clearly seems that such license was acceptable in
Hebrew poetry.
b)
The presence of presumed Aramaisms in these psalms is no longer regarded as an
indication of late composition as was previously thought by some modern
critics. Dahood says:
The
tendency in recent years to assign earlier rather than later dates to the
composition of the psalms comports with the evidence of the Ras Shamra texts.
These show that much of the phraseology in the Psalter was current in Palestine
long before the writing prophets, so the criterion of literary dependence
becomes much too delicate to be serviceable.13
c)
The stylistic affinities in question generally refer to the alphabetic
structure of some of the psalms. Even Driver, who posits this argument, admits
that there is no proof that alphabet arrangement was not used in Davidic times.14
Delitzsch adds this on the use of the alphabetic arrangement in psalms ascribed
to David:
Even
Hitzig does not allow himself to be misled as to the ancient Davidic origin of
Ps. ix and x. by the fact of their having an alphabetical arrangement. These
two Psalms have the honor of being ranked among the thirteen Psalms which are
acknowledged by him to be genuine Davidic Psalms. Thus therefore the
alphabetical arrangement found in the other Psalms cannot, in itself, bring us
down to ‘the times of poetic trifling and degenerated taste.’15
With
respect to the use and appropriateness of this stylistic feature in Davidic
times, Delitzsch adds:
Moreover,
the alphabetic form is adapted to the common people, as is evident from
Augustine’s “Retract.” i. 20. It is not a paltry substitute for the departed
poetic spirit, not merely an accessory to please the eye, and outward
embellishment—it is in itself indicative of mental power.
Respecting
stylistic features of a more unique and personal signature, Perowne says of
David, “He [David] was the model after which they copied; his the fire which
kindled theirs. So great a poet inevitably drew a host of others in his train.”16
Perowne’s observation may well explain some of the stylistic affinities with
later psalms. It is certainly reasonable to assume that David’s writing would
serve as a model for later psalmists.17
The
following items need to be specifically addressed:
1)
As Young has commented, if the psalms ascribed to David specifically referred
to the temple i.e., the permanent sanctuary built in Jerusalem, then it
would indeed be difficult to understand how David could have written those
psalms, since the temple was not constructed until after his death.18
However, the terms used in these psalms to refer to the “temple” or the Lord’s
“house” are words appropriate for referring to the tabernacle used prior to the
construction of the permanent structure. Coppes states:
It
is to be noted that the term hekal is applied to God’s house while it was still
a tent (1 Sam. 1:9; 3:3). In Psa. 27, the temporary structure where David
placed the ark is called a house (bet), a temple (hekal), a booth (sukka), and
a tent (ohel).
2)
That Zion would not have been designated by the expression “holy hill” prior to
the construction of the permanent temple structure is simply conjectural.
2 Samuel 6:12 describes the transfer of the Ark of the Lord from the house
of Obed-edom into the city of David (located on Zion). The presence of the ark
of God on Zion made the expression “holy hill” quite appropriate. That Zion was
viewed as a sacred location can be seen from the fact that the name “Zion”
eventually came to designate the temple complex, which was located on nearby
Moriah (Isa. 8:18; 18:7) and even the entire city of Jerusalem (2 Kings
19:21).20
3)
Even a casual reading of 1 and 2 Samuel reveals that the times in which
David lived were turbulent. Much of David’s life was spent either fleeing
enemies or pursuing them. David’s exile resulting from Absalom’s rebellion
(2 Sam. 15-18) evidences that even late in his reign he had many powerful
enemies. It seems unrealistic to think that he didn’t have opposition both
prior to this conspiracy (2 Sam. 15:12) and after it.21 That
David’s enemies not only opposed him, but his policies, and his
religion as well, seems quite certain.22
4)
It is true that the writer of these psalms often refers to himself in rather
“glowing” terms which ordinarily might seem, at the very least, lacking in
humility and somewhat unnatural. However, two factors ought to be given
consideration before denying Davidic authorship on that basis. First, in the
psalm ascribed to David in 2 Samuel 23 he refers to himself as “the man
who was raised on high,” and “the anointed of the God of Jacob,” also “the
sweet psalmist of Israel.” Whatever one may make of David’s mode of thought as
he wrote, it is apparent from the historical record of 2 Samuel that he
did make such statements concerning himself. Second, when one considers David’s
position as the divinely anointed king (2 Sam. 23:1), such statements can
be seen not as personal glorification, but as the exaltation of God as He
reveals His provision for the nation’s continuance.
5)
That these psalms express a devotion and depth of theological insight too
advanced for David’s time is based solely on an a priori assumption of
naturalistic religious evolution. The historical record must be allowed to
speak for itself and not be adjusted to fit a preconceived notion with respect
to its origin and development.
In
light of these observations there doesn’t seem to be any sound historical or
theological reason for denying Davidic authorship to the psalms so titled.
Consideration
will now be given to the reasons for accepting the le dawid psalms as of
genuine Davidic authorship.
a)
There is no historical reason for denying such psalmody to David’s era. J. B.
Payne says:
From
the viewpoint of higher criticism, all now recognize that poems in the psalm
form appear in the OT long before the time of David (cf. Exod 15; Deut
32-33; Judg 5). In particular, archeological research in Babylonia and Egypt
has brought to light advanced hymnody, centuries before Abraham. The recovery
of Canaanitish lit. at Ugarit has furnished significant parallels to the
psalms, from the time of Moses (cf. J. B. Patton, Canaanite
Parallels in the Book of Psalms) and the major researches of M. Dahood
(Anchor Bible, Psalms).23
b)
It appears that the psalm titles, which in 73 instances ascribe authorship to
David, are ancient.24 They appear in all of the Hebrew MSS and all
of the early versions except the Syriac. To date, no solid historical evidence
has been produced which would discredit these titles as they appear in the
Hebrew MSS. In addition, the research of R. D. Wilson has demonstrated the
compatibility of these psalms to the period in which David lived.
c)
The historical records of both the Old and New Testaments attest to the fact
that David authored many of the psalms. The Old Testament attests to David’s
psalmody in 2 Samuel 1:19-27; 3:33; possibly chapter 22; 23:1-7; and
1 Chronicles 16:7-36.25 The New Testament likewise ascribes
seven psalms to David (Psa 2 cf. Acts 4:25; Psa. 16 cf. Acts
2:25-31; Psa. 32 cf. Rom. 4:6; Psa. 69 cf. Acts 1:15-20; Psa. 95,
cf. Heb. 4:7; Psa. 109 cf. Acts 1:16-20; Psa. 110, cf.
Luke 20:41-44).
In summarizing the discussion of Davidic
authorship, certain points bear restatement:
a)
The oldest texts of the book of psalms contain 73 titles that include the
expression “ledawid” (“of David”). While it is possible that such an
expression might be employed in a sense not indicative of authorship, in
thirteen of these titled psalms the ledawid expression is combined with
historical allusions to the life of David in such a way as would most naturally
indicate that the expression denotes authorship. If ledawid indicates
authorship in these thirteen instances, it is reasonable to assume, in the
absence of evidence to the contrary, that the expression carries the same
meaning in the other 60 psalms.
b)
Critical objections to Davidic authorship commonly rest on an a priori
assumption of religious evolution rather than historical fact. Typically, such
objections either deny the antiquity of a psalm based on its advanced
theological content or link it with other psalms which have been dated late
using the same assumptions. Negative criticism characteristically seeks to
disassociate the question of authorship from external evidence (i.e.,
other books of Scripture which refer to Davidic authorship of psalms), since
all such evidence supports Davidic authorship of many of the psalms.
c)
There is no historical evidence that any of the psalms titled “ledawid”
are out of character for David or his time period.
d)
Both the Old and New Testaments authenticate Davidic authorship in referring to
many of the psalms as the composition of David.26
In
consideration of the above observations, it seems reasonable to conclude that
David authored those psalms that bear his name.
To
the 73 psalms titled “of David” must be added at least five others that are
ascribed to David by other portions of Scripture.27 Those psalms
are: Pss. 2; 95; 96; 105 and 106. Psalm 2 is ascribed to David in Acts
4:25, and Psalm 95 is ascribed to him in Heb. 4:7. The three Psalms: 96; 105
and 106 are contained in part in 1 Chronicles 16:7-36, which is there
ascribed to David.28 This yields a total of 78 known Davidic psalms.
It is at least conceivable that some of the untitled psalms (other than the
five mentioned above) are also Davidic, however, there is no way to determine
such for certain.
There
can be no doubt that David occupies a unique place among the psalmists of
Israel. As Perowne has pointed out, his poetry was the pattern of all to
follow.29 Young lists these six qualities which contributed to
David’s unique abilities as a psalmist: 1) his skill as a musician, 2) his
skill as a poet, 3) his deep feeling and imagination, 4) his true worship of
the Lord, 5) his rich and varied experience, and 6) his special
endowment of the Spirit of God.30
In
regard to David’s musical ability, the historical books are very clear.
1 Samuel 16:17-18 evidences that even as a youth David enjoyed wide
reputation as a “skillful musician,” and Amos, years later, writes of the fact
that David composed songs (Amos 6:5).
2 Samuel 1:17-27, though a dirge, is indicative of his ability as a
poet. One doesn’t have to read far in the Psalms to discover that David was a
man of intense emotion. Take, for example, Psalm 6:6 where he says, “I am weary
with my sighing; every night I make my bed swim, I dissolve my couch with my
tears;” or Psalm 32:3-4 in which he writes, “When I kept silent about my sin,
my body wasted away through my groaning all day long. For day and night Thy
hand was heavy upon me; my vitality was drained as with the fever heat of
summer.” Again, the intensity of his devotion for God can be seen in Psalm 63:1
where he says, “O God, Thou art my God; I shall seek Thee earnestly; my
soul thirsts for Thee, my flesh yearns for Thee…“ It is certainly an
understatement to say that David lead a life of varied experience; one who
started out in life as a shepherd boy, won acclaim as a skillful musician and
composer, was selected to serve in the court of King Saul, demonstrated himself
to be a military genius, spent years in hiding as a fugitive, finally ascended
to the throne of Israel only to have the kingdom split and reunited and then
ripped from him by his own son. Yet, doubtless, his greatest qualification for
authoring these psalms was a special presence of the Holy Spirit. Of this
presence, David was acutely aware, for he prayed in Psalm 51:11, “Do not cast
me away from Thy presence, and do not take Thy Holy Spirit from me.” Though
some of these qualities may not have been unique to David, it seems reasonable
to say that the character of his psalms is due to the fact that, in the
providence of God, these qualities came together in one man—David, “the sweet
psalmist of Israel.”
Notes
1Those
psalms which do not have a superscription are: Pss. 1‑2; 10; 33; 43; 71;
91; 93-97; 99; 104-107; 111-119; 135-137; 146-150.
2Edward
J. Young, An Introduction to the Old Testament, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids:
W. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1950) p. 279.
3Fredertck
Carl Eiselen, The Psalms and Other Sacred Writings: Their Origin, Contents
and Significance, Biblical Introduction Series (New York: The Methodist
Book Concern, 1918) p. 47.
4lbid.,
p. 47, footnote.
5J.W.
McKay and J. W. Rogerson, Psalms 1-50 (London: Cambridge University
Press, 1977) p. 4.
6Eiselen,
The Psalms and Other Sacred Writings. p. 47, footnote.
7Otto
Eissfeldt, The Old Testament: An Introduction, trans. by Peter R.
Ackroyd (New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1965) pp. 451-451.
8All
but two of these psalms are titled “ledawid,” (Pss. 2 and 95). Given
that the Septuagint lists twelve additional psalms as Davidic, it is not
inconceivable that some of the titles have been lost from our relatively late
(tenth century A.D.) Hebrew manuscripts. (This is not to suggest that the LXX
titles are without problems of their own.)
9Young,
An Introduction to the Old Testament, p. 288.
10With
respect to the antiquity of these titles, J. B. Payne says: “From the view
point of lower criticism, no significant evidence exists for denying the
authenticity of the psalm titles within the text of the OT. All Heb. MSS
contain these titles. The earliest VSS, except for the Syr., not only exhibit
their trs. but even misrepresent (e.g., in the LXX) certain of their
meanings which had been lost because of their antiquity.” The Zondervan
Pictorial Bible Encyclopedia, S.v. “Psalms, Book of,” by J.B. Payne.
11See
Driver, An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, pp. 373-380;
Eissfeldt, The Old Testament: An Introduction, pp. 451-454.
12Driver
gives a partial listing of these Aramaisms. Ibid., p. 374, footnote.
13William
Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freeman, general eds., The Anchor Bible,
(Garden City: Doubleday and Company, 1966), Psalms I, by Mitchell
Dahood, p. xxx of the Introduction.
14Driver,
An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, pp. 374-375.
15C.
F. Kell and F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, 10 vols.,
(Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans)
16J.
J. Stewart Perowne, The Book of Palms, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan
Publishing House, 1976) p. 11.
17For
an extensive discussion of these and additional arguments see: R. D. Wilson’s
article in the Princeton Theological Journal, vol. xxiv (April, 1926,
No.2) pp. 389-395.
18Young,
Introduction to the Old Testament, p. 293.
19Theological
Wordbook of the Old Testament,
S.v. “hekal,” by Leonard J. Coppea. See also 2 Sam. 22:7 in which
the term “hekal”is used to describe the tabernacle prior to the
construction of the permanent temple structure.
20Merril
C. Tenny, gen. ed., The Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1973) p. 914.
21Note
also the revolt of Sheba ben Bichri in 2 Samuel 20.
22If
one considers the implications of the Davidic covenant, the conclusion could be
drawn that opposition to David—as the Lord’s anointed (2 Sam. 23:1)—was in
essence opposition to the will of God. Thus a connection can be made between
the political and the religious. Such a connection may well explain some of the
difficulties introduced by the imprecatory psalms.
23The
Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, S.v. “Psalms, Book of,” by J. B. Payne.
24For
an extensive discussion of the manuscript evidence for these titles, see:
R. D. Wilson’s article in the Princeton Theological Review, vol.
xxiv (April, 1926, No. 2), pp. 370-389.
25Critics
have often sought to minimize the weight of external evidence by inferring the
inaccuracy of the OT historical books. Driver (Literature of the Old
Testament, pp. 378-379) seeks to show that the psalm ascribed to David’s
era in 1 Chronicles 16:7-36 is actually a synthesis of three exilic or
post-exilic psalms (Psa. 105:1-15, 96:1-13, and 106:47-48). Yet he fails to
present any conclusive reason for assigning Psa. 105, 96 and 106 to the exilic
or post-exilic era. Likewise, Eiselen follows the same approach—denying the
validity of the OT historical books (The Psalms and Other Sacred Writings,
pp. 52-53). Denial of such clear-cut external testimony allows the negative
critic to retreat into the more obscure areas of historical allusion, religious
and theological ideas, relationship with other psalms, and matters of language
and style—about which there is much opinion and little fact.
26The
N.T. employs such ascriptions as: “ho tou patros hemon din pneumatos hagiou
stomatos Dauid piados sou eipon,” (“[You spoke] by the mouth of our father
David, your servant saying...”) —Acts 4:25a, cf. vv. 25b-26; “autos
gar Dauid legei en biblo psalmon,” (“for David himself says in the Book of
Psalms…“—luke 20:42a, cf. vv. 42b-44); “...edei plepothenai
ten graphen hen proeipen to pneuma to hagion dia stomatos Dauid,” (“…the
Scripture must be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit spoke before through the
mouth of David…”)—Acts 1:16a cf. v. 20.
27The
73 psalms containing the title “of David” are: Pss. 3-9; 11-32; 34-41; 51-65;
68-70; 86; 101; 103; 108-110; 122; 124; 131; 133; 138-145.
28Their
order of appearance in 1 Chronicles 16:7-36 is: Psa. 105:1-15; 96:1-13;
106:47-48.
29Perowne,
The Book of Psalms, p. 11.
30Young,
An Introduction to the Old Testament, pp. 288-290.
Bibliography
Albright, William Foxwell and Freedman,
David Noel, general eds. The Anchor Bible. Garden City: Doubleday and
Company, 1966. Psalms I, by Mitchell Dahood.
Buttrick, George Arthur, ed. The
Interpreter’s Bible. Nashville: Abington
Press, 1955.
Driver, S. R. An Introduction to the
Literature of the Old Testament. 9th ed. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1950.
Eiselen, Frederick Carl, The Psalms
and Other SacredWritings: Their Origin, Contents, and Significance.
Biblical Introduction Series. New York: The Methodist Book Concern, 1918.
Eissfeldt, Otto. The Old Testament: An
Introduction. Translated by Peter R. Ackroyd. New York: Harper and Row
Publishers, 1965.
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, S.v. “Psalms, Book of,” by John Richard
Sampey., S.v. “Holiness,” by J. C. Lambert.
Keil, C. F. and Delitzsch, F. Commentary
on the Old Testament. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: William B.Eerdmans Publishing
Co., reprint 1980. Vol. 5(i): Psalms, by F. Delitzsch, Translated by
James Martin.
Leupold, H. C. Exposition of the
Psalms. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, reprint 1969—86.
McKay, J. W. and Rogerson, J. W. Psalms
1-50. London: Cambridge University Press, 1977.
Perowne, J. J. Stewart. The Book of
Psalms. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976.
Tenny, Merrill C., gen. ed. The
Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing
Co., 1973.
The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of
the Bible, S.v. “Psalms,
Book of,” and “Holiness.”
Weidner, Franklin. Biblical Theology
of the Old Testament. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1896.
White, R. E. O. A Christian Handbook
to the Psalms. Grand Rapids: The Paternoster Press, 1984.
Young, Edward J. An Introduction to
the Old Testament. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: W. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.,
1950.
Copyright 1986, 2004 by Sam A. Smith / Biblical Reader
Communications
Originally published online in The Biblical Reader,
January 2004; republished in September 24, 2007
Available at: www.biblicalreader.com