Psalms and its compiler

Sydnorphyn · #1 (**permalink**) 05-14-2007, 09:22 PM

Pruitan brothers:

Assuming the Psalter was compiled over a vast period of time [see Psalm 90, et al], what are the implication(s) for inspiration having the final form (as B. Childs, G. Wilson, and D. Howard understand it) compiled sometime after the exile?

Grace and peace

armourbearer · #2 (**permalink**) 05-15-2007, 12:34 AM

I don't think there are ill consequences for the doctrine of inspiration if a post-exilic redactor is hypothesised prior to the closing of the OT canon. But I do not believe there is adequate evidence to support the hyposthesis. This is from the same work I utilised in the thread pertaining to the theology of the Psalter.

Quote:

The major weakness. Nearly all of these works stress a post-exilic redactor, and insist on viewing the whole of the Psalter in the light of this crisis and/or partial resolution. McCann expresses the essence of this idea when he says: “Book III has been decisively shaped by the experience of exile and dispersion.” The majority of studies to date seem to depend upon disappointment and a reworking of Israel’s theology in the light of that disappointment. Various schools of thought are posited into this hypothesis in order to add elements necessary for this reworking, e.g., the wisdom school, the eschatological outlook, the priestly/cultic order, together with Davidic supporters. In some complex way, the redactor is regarded as working these into a unified composition fitted to express the new theology of the post-exilic community.

The suggestion that the exile was an important event in the Psalter is based upon incidental allusions to exile in general. But when it is considered that exile was a concern in the life of David, and that Asaph highlighted it as a part of the covenantal curses, it becomes clear that there is no genuine basis for supposing that the exile is of any concern in the book at all. Exile, in general, is a concern; but so is it in the song of Moses (Deut. 32:26), and in the pre-exilic prophets. Exile was a threatened curse upon an unfaithful people who were covenanted to be the Lord’s. When, therefore, the Psalms refer to the Lord’s warnings against unfaithful behaviour, it is only natural that exile should be a prominent subject.

The post-exilic approach ignores some elementary facts concerning the Psalter’s presentation. (1.) David is the author from beginning to end. There is a tendency to take for granted the fact that David’s name appears at the head of nearly half of the psalms. Of the other half, a half of those are untitled. Of the titled half of the half, the names mentioned are regarded as co-temporary with David in the historical books of the Old Testament. When anonymity abounds, David’s name continues to be highlighted. There is one prayer of Moses (90), and two that are probably for, but may be of Solomon (72, 127). Hence, the prima facie evidence which appears within the book itself indicates that no one composition ought to be dated later than David’s son.

(2.) David is the leading character from beginning to end. Though a national and a universal focus emerge at points, these are always portrayed in the context of David’s calling and experience as the king of Israel. Of the 14 superscriptions which provide an historical setting for the psalms, all of them are concerned with theologically significant incidents in the life of David. Furthermore, even when there are other contributors, their work is always juxtaposed with David’s compositions and interact with them. Book 1 is exclusively Davidic; and while book 2 commences with Korah and Asaph, it concludes with David’s prayers. There is only one psalm of David in book 3, but the centrality of its positioning as an ‘oracle of salvation’ in the middle of Korahite concern for the sanctuary demonstrates that it is the hinge upon which the book turns. In book 4 there are only two explicit Davidic psalms. 100 comes as a climax to the kingship of Yahweh theme, and 103 prefaces the “historical psalms” with a key-note of undeserved mercy. In book 5, where the majority are anonymous, David is the focus. It is bound together by Davidic collections at the beginning and close of the book, if 107 is understood to be introductory, and 146-150 a combined doxology.

It needs, moreover, to be borne in mind, that the historical books, while they bear abundant testimony to psalmodic creativity in the times of David, not once suggest that the same creativity was exercised in after times. Quite the opposite is the case. “Hezekiah the king and the princes commanded the Levites to sing praise unto the LORD with the words of David, and of Asaph the seer” (2 Chron. 29:30). Later, after the exile, “both the singers and the porters kept the ward of their God, and the ward of the purification, according to the commandment of David, and of Solomon his son. For in the days of David and Asaph of old there were chief of the singers, and songs of praise and thanksgiving unto God” (Neh. 12:45, 46). In both cases there is a self-conscious determination to adhere to that which was established by David, and there is no indication that this was added to by later reformers.

Jerusalem Blade · #3 (**permalink**) 05-15-2007, 12:48 AM

E.J. Young, in his, An Introduction to the Old Testament, gives a helpful appraisal:

"It is probable that David himself began a formal collection and arrangement of the Psalms. David instituted the liturgical use of a few Psalms at least (e.g., 1 Ch.16:4 ff.)...

"Hezekiah may have been responsible for arranging the first three books of the Psalter. At least in his time there were collections of David's and Asaph's Psalms (2 Ch. 29:30). It is impossible to tell how or when Book IV was collected, but probably Ezra was the final editor of the entire collection." (p. 308)

I agree with Rev. Winzer's quote that the Psalms were written in David's time, though the final arrangement may have been at Ezra's hand.

The "implications" for the final form of them being inspired of God is that it is 100% certain: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God..." (2 Tim 3:16)

John, that is a strange signature you use (i.e., the catfish); pray tell, what is the meaning of it?

Steve

armourbearer · #4 (**permalink**) 05-15-2007, 12:57 AM

Steve -- E J Young and Westminster OT faculties generally do not do justice to the superscriptions of the Psalms. Remove the credibility of the superscripts and you can place the book in any era one pleases. I don't favour a post-exilic editor for the reasons mentioned in the quotation. I find it interesting that the NT presupposes Davidic authorship even where the titles of the Psalms are anonymous. Blessings!

bookslover · #5 (**permalink**) 05-15-2007, 12:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerusalem Blade

I agree with Rev. Winzer's quote that the Psalms were written in David's time, though the final arrangement may have been at Ezra's hand.

Well, except for Psalm 90 (Moses) and, perhaps, some or all of the anonymous psalms. This author (whoever he is - Matthew?) seems a little overly certain of his conclusions at times. Still, it's an interesting read.

Jerusalem Blade · #6 (**permalink**) 05-15-2007, 07:50 AM

Richard, I stand corrected on Moses' psalm!

And Matthew, I shall have to look more deeply into what you say. Have you written more books, published or not?

Steve

Kaalvenist · #7 (**permalink**) 05-15-2007, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Steve -- E J Young and Westminster OT faculties generally do not do justice to the superscriptions of the Psalms. Remove the credibility of the superscripts and you can place the book in any era one pleases. I don't favour a post-exilic editor for the reasons mentioned in the quotation. I find it interesting that the NT presupposes Davidic authorship even where the titles of the Psalms are anonymous. Blessings!

The only question I have concerning your view regards Psalm 137. I give full authority to the titles of the Psalms, and to 2 Chronicles 29:30 (they both figure largely in my own argument for EP); but just as Psalm 90, by its title, clearly predates the Davidic period, I cannot help but see Psalm 137, by its internal testimony, as antedating the Davidic period, and written probably during the Babylonian exile.

armourbearer · #8 (**permalink**) 05-15-2007, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaalvenist

The only question I have concerning your view regards Psalm 137. I give full authority to the titles of the Psalms, and to 2 Chronicles 29:30 (they both figure largely in my own argument for EP); but just as Psalm 90, by its title, clearly predates the Davidic period, I cannot help but see Psalm 137, by its internal testimony, as antedating the Davidic period, and written probably during the Babylonian exile.

Yes, well this psalm has been the crux of an exilic "terminus a quo" for the final compilation of the Psalter. Having read the great majority of commentators on this psalm I am yet to find one piece of internal evidence which substantiates the theory. I am not saying I am closed to the possibility; but one requires more than mere speculation to overturn hard evidence, and it has not been forthcoming. The bare mention of "Babylon" is not internal evidence, especially considering the "mystical" importance of the word in the OT as it conveys the idea of the seat of opposition to the kingdom of God. Verse 7 goes on to describe the entity to which this mystical appellation refers, namely, Edom, and the captivity pertains to their designs against the city of Jerusalem. This could refer to any period of time from David onwards. Besides, even if it were literal, there is no reason why the Psalmist could not be speaking prophetically, which we acknowledge was the case with the pre-exilic prophets.

armourbearer · #9 (**permalink**) 05-15-2007, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerusalem Blade

And Matthew, I shall have to look more deeply into what you say. Have you written more books, published or not?

Steve -- I'm a little like John Murray and believe these things require mature reflection. The idea of having to write a book of retractions later in life doesn't really appeal to me.

armourbearer · #10 (**permalink**) 05-15-2007, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaalvenist

I give full authority to the titles of the Psalms.

One more point -- this is what led to my distrust of the post-exilic redactor theory -- consider how the commentators take Psalms that are specifically said to be Davidic and hypothesise editorial additions to them. E.g., the closing verses of Ps. 51. They do so on the basis of so-called internal evidence, that is, that the walls of Jerusalem were already built in David's day, so the latter verses must have been added when those walls were torn down. You find as you go through the commentators that this fanciful procedure is carried out multifariously without the least scrap of material support. It is on the basis of consistently appealing to "internal evidence" that the critics eventually discredit the titles altogether. E.g., A psalm attributed to David speaks of the "house of God," but David did not live to see the house of God built; therefore the psalm could not have been written by David; therefore the inscriptions are not original. Thus the reasoning goes. The theological significance of Israel's religious entitites is left entirely out of view, that is, what the walls of Jerusalem would have meant in terms of God being the defence of His people, or what the house of God meant as to the manifestation of the glorious presence of God in the life of His people.

bookslover · #11 (**permalink**) 05-15-2007, 11:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaalvenist

...as antedating the Davidic period, and written probably during the Babylonian exile.

If it antedates the Davidic period, then how could it have been written during the Babylonian exile?

VirginiaHuguenot · #12 (**permalink**) 05-16-2007, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Steve -- I'm a little like John Murray and believe these things require mature reflection. The idea of having to write a book of retractions later in life doesn't really appeal to me.

As one who has posted here almost 14,000 times, I can relate!

Rev. Winzer, do you have any recommendations on resources to study this particular issue further?

armourbearer · #13 (**permalink**) 05-16-2007, 11:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VirginiaHuguenot

As one who has posted here almost 14,000 times, I can relate!

Rev. Winzer, do you have any recommendations on resources to study this particular issue further?

Andrew, if discussion boards are on the same level as writing books ...

... I think we're all in trouble.

I wish there was a resource I could point you to with regard to this issue. The commentators accept exilic and post-exilic elements in the Psalms without question, so no one dares to challenge the opinion. All I can suggest is a thorough exegesis of the book of Psalms with a sincere endeavour to answer the question, Can the book be properly understood within the historical period in which it presents itself, i.e., David? (I imagine you sing through the Psalter consecutively for family worship, which helps immensely in developing a proper sense of the overall message.) If this question can be answered in the affirmative then there is really no basis for conjecturing a later date for certain compositions. You could also go through Hengstenberg and Delitzch, perhaps the two best conservative commentators, and go through their reasoning for ascribing later periods for certain Psalms -- it really is not very compelling. Blessings!