The Book or, received its name, Ψάλμοι, in consequence of the lyrical character (ψάλλω, to touch or strike a chord) of the pieces of which it consists, as intended to be sung to stringed and other instruments of music. Another name, Psalter, was given to this book, from the Greek ψαλτήριον, the stringed instrument to which its contents were originally sung. The Hebrew title (תהלים) signifies hymns or praises, and was probably adopted on account of the use made of the collection in divine service, though only a part can be strictly called songs of praise, not a few being lamentations and prayers. In Ps. lxxii.-20, we find all the preceding compositions (Ps. i.-lxxii.) styled prayers of David, because many of them are strictly prayers, and all are pervaded by the spirit and tone of supplication. All the best judges, as Lowth, Herder, De Wette, Ewald, Tholuck, and others, pronounce the poetry of the Psalms to be of the lyric order. "They are," says De Wette (Einleitung in die Psalmen, p. 2), "lyric in the proper sense; for among the Hebrews, as among the ancients generally, poetry, singing, and music were united, and the inscriptions to most of the Psalms determine their connection with music, though in a way not always intelligible to us. Also as works of taste these compositions deserve to be called lyric. The essence of lyric poetry is the immediate expression of feeling; and feeling is the sphere in which most of the Psalms move. Pain, grief, fear, hope, joy, trust, gratitude, submission to God, everything that moves and elevates the heart, is expressed in these songs. Most of them are the lively effusions of the excited susceptible heart, the fresh offspring of inspiration and elevation of thought; while only a few are spiritless imitations and compilations, or unpoetic forms of prayer, temple hymns, and collections of proverbs." We shall consider in their order the Titles of the Psalms, their Authors, their Collection and Arrangement, and their Canonicity and Use.
Titles.—All the Psalms; except thirty-four, bear superscriptions. According to some, there are only twenty-five exceptions, as they reckon a title in all the Psalms which commence with it. The authority of the titles is a matter of doubt. By most of the ancient critics they were considered genuine, and of equal authority with the Psalms themselves, while most of the moderns reject them either in whole or in part. They were wholly rejected at the close of the fourth century by Theodore of Mopsuestia, one of the ablest and most judicious of ancient interpreters. They are received, on the other hand, by Tholuck and Hengstenberg in their works on the Psalms. Of the antiquity of the inscriptions there can be no question, for they are found in the Septuagint. They are supposed to be even much older than this version, since they were no longer intelligible to the translator, who often makes no sense of them. Their obscurity might, however, have been owing not so much to their antiquity as to the translator's residence in Egypt, and consequent ignorance of the Psalmody of the Temple service in Jerusalem. At any rate the appearance of the titles in the Sept. can only prove them to be about as ancient as the days of Ezra. Then it is argued by many that they must be as old as the Psalms themselves; for very important traces of the custom of prefixing titles to their songs by Orientals appear in Isa. xxxviii. 9, in Hab. iii. 1, and in 2 Sam. i. 17, 18 (Tholuck's Psalmen, p. xxiv.). In 2 Sam. xxiii. 1, and Num. xxiv. 3, there is strong proof of the usage, if, with Tholuck, we take the verses as inscriptions, and not as integral parts of the songs, which most hold them justly to be from their poetical form.
The following considerations militate against the authority of the titles:—1. The analogy between them and the subscriptions to the apostolical Epistles. The latter are now universally rejected; why not the former? 2. The Greek and Syriac versions exhibit them with great and numerous variations, often altering the Hebrew. Could such variations have arisen if the titles had been considered sacred like the Psalms themselves? 3. The inscriptions are occasionally at variance with the contents of the Psalms.
The design of these inscriptions is to specify either the author or the chief singer (never the latter by name, except in Ps. xxxix.), or the historical subject or occasion, or the use, or the style of poetry, or the instrument and style of music. Some titles simply designate the author, as in Ps. xxv., while others specify several of the above particulars, as in Ps. li. The longest and fullest title of all is prefixed to Ps. lx., where we have the author, the chief musician (not by name), the historical occasion (comp. 2 Sam. vii.), the use or design, the style of poetry, and the instrument or style of music. It is confessedly very difficult, if not impossible, to explain all the terms employed in the inscriptions; and hence critics have differed exceedingly in their conjectures.
Authors.—Many of the ancients, both Jews and Christians, maintained that all the Psalms were written by David; which is one of the most striking proofs of their uncritical judgment. So the Talmudists (Cod. Petachim, c. x., p. 117); Augustine (De Civ. Dei, xvii. 14); and Chrysostom (Prol. ad Psalms). But Jerome held the opinion which now universally prevails (Epist. ad Sophronium). The titles and the contents of the Psalms most clearly show that they were composed at different and remote periods by several poets, of whom David was only the largest and most eminent contributor. According to the inscriptions, we have the following list of authors:
1. David, "the sweet Psalmist of Israel" (2 Sam. xxiii. 1). To him are ascribed seventy-three Psalms in the Hebrew text, and at least eleven others in the Septuagint, namely, xxxiii., xliii., xcii., xciv., xcix., civ., cxxxvii.; to which may be added Ps. x., as it forms part of Ps. ix. in that version. From what has been advanced above respecting the authority of the titles, it is obviously injudicious to maintain that David composed all that have his name prefixed in the Hebrew, or to suppose that he did not compose some of the eleven ascribed to him in the Septuagint, and of the others which stand without any author's name at all. Of those which the Septuagint ascribes to David, it is not improbable that Ps. xcix. and cv. are really his; and of those which bear no name in either text, at least Ps. ii. appears to be David's. David's compositions are generally distinguished by sweetness, softness, and grace; but sometimes, as in Ps. xviii., they exhibit the sublime. His prevailing strain is plaintive, owing to his multiplied and sore trials, both before and after his occupation of the throne. See Herder's Geist der Ehr. Poesie, ii. 297-301; and especially Tholuck (Psalmen, Einleitung, § 3), who gives a most admirable exhibition of the Psalmist's history and services. The example and countenance of the king naturally led others to cultivate poetry and music. Of these Psalmists the names of several are preserved in the titles.
2. Asaph is named as the author of twelve Psalms, viz., I., lxiii.-lxviii. He was one of David's chief musicians. All the poems bearing his name cannot be his; for in Ps. lxxiv., lxxix., and lxxx., there are manifest allusions to very late events in the history of Israel. Either, then, the titles of these three Psalms must be wholly rejected, or the name must be here taken for the "sons of Asaph," which is not improbable, as the family continued for many generations in the choral service of the Temple. Asaph appears from Ps. I., lxiii., and lxxxviii., to have been the greatest master of didactic poetry, excellent alike in sentiment and in diction.
3. The sons of Korah was another family of choristers, to whom eleven of the most beautiful Psalms are ascribed. However, in Ps. lxxxviii., we find, besides the family designation, the name of the individual who wrote it.
4. Heman was another of David's chief singers (1 Chron. xv. 19). He is called the Ezrahite, as being descended from some Ezrah, who appears to have been a descendant of Korah; at least Heman is reckoned a Kohathite (1 Chron. vi. 33-38), and was therefore probably a Korahite; for the Kohathites were continued and counted in the line of Korah.
5. Ethan is reputed the author of Ps. lxxxix. The Ethan intended in the title is doubtless the Levite of Merari's family whom David made chief musician along with Asaph and Heman (1 Chron. vi. 44; xxxi. 1, 6). The Psalm could not, however, be composed by him, for it plainly alludes (ver. 38-44) to the downfall of the kingdom.
6. Solomon is given as the author of Ps. lxiii. and cxxxvii., and there is no decided internal evidence to the contrary, though most consider him to be the subject, and not the author, of Ps. lxiii.
7. Moses is reputed the writer of Ps. xc., and there is no strong reason to doubt the tradition. But the Talmudists, whom Origen, and even Jerome, follow, ascribe to him also the ten succeeding Psalms (xcii.-c.), on the principle that the anonymous productions belonged to the last-named author. This principle is manifestly false, since in several of these Psalms we find evidence that Moses was not the author. In Ps. xcvi., the forty years' wandering in the wilderness is referred to as past; in Ps. cxxxvii. 8, mention is made of Zion and Judah, which proves that it cannot be dated earlier than the time of David; and in Ps. cxxxix. 6, the prophet Samuel is named, which also proves that Moses could not be the writer.
The dates of the Psalms, as must be obvious from what has been stated respecting the authors, are very various, ranging from the time of Moses to that of the Captivity—a period of nearly 1000 years. In the time of King Jehoshaphat (about B.C. 896), Ps. lxxxiii., setting forth the dangers of the nation, as we read in 2 Chron. xx. 1-25, was composed either by himself, as some suppose, or most likely, according to the title, by Jahaziel, "a Levite of the sons of Asaph," who was then an inspired teacher (see 2 Chron. xx. 14). In the days of Hezekiah, who was himself a poet (Isa. xxxviii. 9-20), we may date with great probability the Korahite Psalms xlv. and xlviii., which seem to celebrate the deliverance from Sennacherib (2 Kings xix. 35). In the period of the Captivity were evidently written such laments as Ps. xlv., lxxix., cii., and cxxxvii.; and after its close, when the captives returned, we must manifestly date Ps. cxxxv., and cxxxvi.
Collection and Arrangement.—As the Psalms are productions of different authors in different ages, we are led to inquire how and when they were collected. The truth seems to be, as Ewald and Tholuck maintain, that the collection was made not so much with reference to the beauty of the pieces as to their adaptation for devotional use in public worship. When the Psalms were collected, and by whom, are questions that cannot be confidently answered. It is certain that the book, as it now stands, could not have been formed before the building of the second temple, for Ps. cxxxvi. was evidently composed at that period. In all probability it was formed by Ezra and his contemporaries, about B.C. 450 (Ewald's Poet. Bücher, ii. 205). But in the arrangement of the book there is manifest proof of its gradual formation out of several smaller collections, each ending with a kind of doxology. The Psalter is divided in the Hebrew into five books, and also in the Septuagint version, which proves the division to be older than B.C. 200. The first book includes i.-xli.; the second, xlii.-lxxi.; the third, lxxii.-lxxxix.; the fourth, xc.-cvii.; and the fifth, cvi.-cl. These five books may, with some propriety, be thus distinguished:—The first Davidic, the second Korahite, the third Aramaic, and the two remaining Liturgical.
Various classifications of the Psalms have been proposed (Carpzov, Introductio, &c., ii. 132-134). Tholuck would divide them according to the matter, into songs of praise, of thanksgiving, of complaint, and of instruction. De Wette suggests another method (Einleitung, p. 3), into—
1. Hymns, as viii., xviii.; 2. National Psalms, as lxxviii., cv.; 3. Psalms of Zion and the Temple, as xv., xxiv.; 4. Psalms respecting the king, as ii., cx.; 5. Psalms of complaint, as vii., xxii.; and 6. Religious Psalms, as xlii., xcii. It is obvious however, that no very accurate classification can be made, since many are of diversified contents and uncertain tenor.
Canonicity and Use.—The inspiration and canonical authority of the Psalms are established by the most abundant and convincing evidence; and no other writing is so frequently cited in the Scriptures. In every age of the church the Psalms have been extolled for their excellence and their use for pious purposes (Carpzov, l.c., pp. 109-116). Among the early Christians it was customary to learn the book by heart, that psalmody might enliven their social hours, and soften the fatigues and soothe the sorrows of life. They employed the Psalms not only in their religious assemblies, but also at their meals and before retiring to rest.
It may be well here to notice what are called the vindictive Psalms, namely, those which contain expressions of wrath and imprecations against the enemies of God and his people, such as Ps. lix, lxix, lxxix., and which in consequence are apt to shock the feelings of some Christian readers. In order to obviate this offence, most of our pious commentators insist that the expressions are not maledictions or imprecatons, but simple declarations of what will or may take place. But this is utterly inadmissible; for in several of the most startling passages the language in the original is plainly imperative, and not indicative. (See Ps. lix. 14; lxix. 25, 28; lxxix. 6.) The truth is, that in reality they are not opposed to the spirit of the gospel, or to that love of enemies which Christ enjoined. Resentment against evil-doers is so far from being sinful, that we find it exemplified in Christ himself. (See Mark iii. 5.) If the emotion and its utterance were essentially sinful, how could Paul (1 Cor. xvi. 22) wish the enemy of Christ to be accursed, or say of his own enemy, Alexander the coppersmith, "the Lord reward him according to his works" (2 Tim. iv. 14); and, especially, how could the spirits of the just in heaven call on God for vengeance (Rev. vi. 10)? See a good article on this subject ("The Imprerations in the Scriptures") in the American Bibliotheca Sacra for February 1844.
The following are among the chief exegetical aids for explaining this book—Poli Synopsis; Venema, Comment. in Psalmos; De Wette's Commentar über die Psalmen, 1836; Rosenmüller's Scholia in Epit. Redacta, vol. iii.; Maureri Comment. Crit. Grammaticus, vol. iii.; Hitzig's Comment. und Uebersetzung; Ewald's Poet. Bücher, vol. ii.; Tholuck's Uebersetzung und Auslegung der Psalmien; and Hengstenberg's Commentar ueber die Psalmien. The last two are excellent.
The principal English works on the Book of Psalms are the translations (mostly with notes) of Mudge, 1744; Edwards, 1755; Penwick, 1759; Green, 1762; Street, 1790; Wake, 1793; Geddes, 1807; Horsley, 1815; Fry, 1819; French and Skinner, 1830; Noyes, 1831 (Boston, U.S.); Walford, 1837; Bush, 1838 (New York); and numerous commentaries. An excellent work is, Rev. John Jebb, A Literal Translation of the Book of Psalms, with Dissertations, Lond. 1846. There is also a tolerably well executed translation into English verse, by E.A. Bowring, Lond. 1858.