THE
No. 3-July,
1905. pp. 353-75. Public Domain.
I.
THE NINETEENTH PSALM IN
THE CRITICISM
OF THE NINETEENTH
CENTURY.
JOHN
D. DAVIS
IN
the first part of the nineteenth Psalm, comprising verses 2-7,
or 1-6 as numbered in the English versions, the
Psalmist sings
of the glory of God as displayed in the heavens:
2 The heavens declare the glory of
God,
And the firmament showeth his handiwork.
3 Day unto day uttereth
speech,
And night unto night showeth knowledge.
4 There is no speech nor language,
Their voice is unheard.
5 Their line is gone out through all
the earth,
And their words to the end of the world.
In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun,
6 Which is as a bridegroom coming
out of his chamber,
And rejoiceth as a strong
man to run his course.
7 His going forth is from the end of
the heavens,
And his circuit unto the ends of it;
And there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.
In
the second part the glory of Jehovah's law is first extolled:
8
The
law of Jehovah is perfect, restoring
the soul:
The
testimony of Jehovah is sure, making wise the simple.
9
The precepts of Jehovah are right, rejoicing the heart:
The commandment of Jehovah is pure, enlightening the eyes.
10
The fear of Jehovah is clean, enduring
forever:
The
ordinances of Jehovah are true, and righteous altogether.
11
More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold;
Sweeter also than honey and the droppings of the honey
comb.
354 THE
And
then the poet, viewing his own life in relation to this law, prays
for pardon, deliverance, and acceptance:
12
Moreover by them is thy servant warned: in keeping them is great reward.
13
Who can discern his errors? Clear thou me from hidden faults.
14
Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins, let them not have do-
minion over
me:
Then shall I be upright, and I shall be
clear from great transgression.
15
Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart
Be acceptable in thy sight, 0 Jehovah, my
rock and my redeemer.
From the apparent lack of coherence
between these two parts
and from their dissimilarity in word and matter, Rosenmuller, in
1798,
concluded that the nineteenth Psalm is composed either of
two distinct hymns which by accident or design
became joined
together, or else, in view especially of the
abrupt ending of the first
part, of fragments of two hymns (Scholia in V. T., Partis 4 Vol. 1,
pp. 530, 536). This conjecture he
withdrew in the second edition
of the Scholia, which
was published in 1831, as being unnecessary;
since "nothing is more common among the ancient
poets of both
the Hebrews and the Arabians than suddenly to pass
from one
theme to another in the same song." But although
Rosenmuller
abandoned his entire theory and unreservedly
accepted the unity
of the Psalm, the doctrine oft composite origin of
this exquisite
ode was not allowed to lapse. De Wette had in the meantime re-
vised Rosenmuller's
argument. Like Rosenmuller in his retraction,
and on substantially the same grounds, de Wette denied significance
to the alleged lack of coherence between the two
parts of the
psalm; since abrupt transition, says he, is
characteristic of lyric
poetry, and is exemplified in the first half of this
very poem in the
sudden introduction of the sun. But though de Wette
rejected this
argument, based on the abruptness of the change
from one subject
to another, yet on other grounds he asserted the
original indepen-
dence of the two parts. The
argument which Rosenmuller derived
from the dissimilarity of language and material de Wette modified,
partly into diverseness of style; but he discerned the
chief marks
of double authorship in the difference of tone,
presentation, and
character of parallelism in the two sections,
particularly in the
greater length of the verse-members or lines,
and in the less
sprightly rhythm, of the latter part of the poem.
To this evidence
he added an argument wholly his own, though at the
same time it
is a further specialization of Rosenmuller's
general reference to dis-
similarity in word and matter. He discovered in the
latter part
"probably the fragment of a penitential Psalm"; and
"the poet,
CRITICISM
OF THE NINETEENTH PSALM. 355
who begins with that exalted contemplation of
nature, could hardly
have concluded with the sentiments of the contrite
heart." He
might, indeed, have been led by a contemplation of
the heavens to
an humble frame of mind, as in Psalm viii; but had
he "carried such
trouble in his heart as is expressed in verses
13 and 14," he "could
scarcely have brought himself into harmony with
the rejoicings of
creation" which are voiced in the first part
(de Wette, Commentar
u. d. Psalmen, 3e Aufl, 1829). But over against de Wette's view it
is significant that the nineteenth Psalm has never
been reckoned
among the seven penitential Psalms (Ps. vi, xxv,
xxxii, xxxviii,
cxxx, cxliii).
It needs only to be compared with the fifty-first, for
example, to exhibit the difference between its
sentiments and a cry
of penitence wrung from a broken and contrite
heart. The Psalmist
is not conscious of actual transgressions. He
refers to sins of
inadvertence; asks to be acquitted
of the sins that are hidden from
his eyes, and to be kept from the commission of
wickedness. As
Hengstenberg says, “There is no
trace of a bruised heart; the mind
rises in the face of human weakness, easily and
without a struggle,
to the blessed hope of divine forgiveness and
sustaining grace.”
The
prayer is quite compatible with a spirit that is in attune with
nature's choir in its praise of God. It is not
surprising, therefore,
that this argument of de Wette's
at once sank out of sight, and
has never been put forth again. His abiding
contribution to the
discussion consists in his exhibition of the
difference in style
between the two parts of the Psalm. Of this, more anon.
In 1835, six years after the third
edition of de Wette's work
appeared, Ewald issued
his commentary on the Psalms. He, paid
no heed to Rosenmuller's
abandonment of his whole argument, nor
to de Wette's demurrer
to a part of it; but he returned to Rosen-
mailer's original reasoning in so far as it was
based on lack of con-
nection and on difference of
content. "There is no transition from
the first to the second part either in thought or
language," he says,
whereas the subject changes abruptly and
entirely. The differ-
ence of theme calls for
explanation. In the first and second
editions of his commentary, he made no use of the
argument
derived from the difference of measure and
rhythm, upon which,
together with the difference in tone, de Wette had placed his chief
reliance. His indifference to the claim which was
put forth for
diverse authorship on the ground of this
rhythmical dissimilarity
was doubtless influenced by the suggestion, which
de Wette reports
a friend to have made, that the change of style
might be accounted
for by the radical difference of theme. Ewald did, however, discern
356 THE
a feebler speech in the second part, and a
stylistic coloring, as he
calls it. He adduced this rhetorical inferiority as
evidence of a
later age when force and vigor were waning; and in
his third edition
he supplemented this argument for a late date by
an appeal to the
art of the verse (kunst
des verses); for, he says, that while in this
[second] part also there are two strophes of four verses
each, yet
the "long-membered"
verse prevails. And further, with respect
to the time of composition, he saw in the
Psalmist's profound appre-
ciation for God's law and
apprehension of its spirituality, and also
in the Psalmist's prayer for deliverance from the
arrogant (verse 14),
marks of a date not earlier than the eighth century
(first edition),
or seventh and sixth centuries (third edition). Ewald had found
four features in the second part of the Psalm which,
in his judgment,
indicated lateness of composition, namely, a
decline in the poetic
vigor, a longer verse, a spiritual appreciation of
the law, and a
prayer for deliverance from the arrogant. Accordingly,
Ewald
concluded that the present composite nineteenth
Psalm consists of
an earlier and a later poem. The earlier one he
regarded as Davidic.
Ewald, moreover, pointed out, on the one hand, that
the hymn
with which the Psalm begins is without an
application, without
a hint as to how man must praise God or receive
the praise uttered
by the heavens; and, on the other hand, that the
second portion
lacks a satisfactory beginning, since no prayer would
begin "in so
chilly a manner." Hence the only possible
inference is that "a
later poet attached this conclusion to that ancient
[Davidic] piece,
in order to place the revelation in nature and
that in Scripture on
equal footing (gleich zu stellen); he either found the
ancient piece
without its original ending or, what is more
probable, the old
ending no longer sufficed him, since at his time the
written revela-
tion had attained to high
importance, and it seemed to him fitting
to touch upon this latter also."
There were thus two distinct
arguments before the public, as early
as 1835, for the composite structure of the
nineteenth Psalm, namely,
diversity of theme and difference of rhythm; and
before the century
was half over three arguments, and soon thereafter
four arguments,
for the later date of the second part, namely, a
decline of poetic
vigor, a spiritual appreciation for the law, a prayer
for deliverance
from the arrogant, and the art of the verse.
Eventually two more
arguments for the late origin of one or both parts
of the Psalm
were advanced. In the study of this Psalm,
therefore, eight mat-
ters require investigation.
Two concern the unity of the poem,
and six relate to the date of its composition.
And, first, the
unity of the Psalm.
CRITICISM
OF THE NINETEENTH PSALM. 357
DIVERSITY OF THEME.
In 1835, a few months later than Ewald, Hitzig reviewed the
previous discussions, and accepted the unity of
the Psalm. "Pos-
session—the fact that the parts are
united-is," he says, "much
easier to justify than to contend against." The
argument based on
the sudden transition from one theme to the other
had been shown
by Rosenmuller and de Wette to lack cogency. The mere abrupt-
ness of the change might be a sign that the Psalm
has been pieced
together out of other poems, or it might not. In
itself it proves
nothing. The closely related argument drawn from
the difference
of content was nullified by Hitzig,
in that he advanced proof of an
internal connection in thought between the two
parts of the Psalm.
Remarking
that "the Psalm sings [or voices] the praise of God [that
rises] from nature and from revelation," he
pointed out that "the
Hebrew
was especially apt to join these two thoughts. He never
made a distinction between the common God of the
world and his
own particular God, the Lawgiver." Nowack and Reuss, indeed,
object that "verses 8-15 are not the praise of
God from revelation,
but are the praise of the law"; and Hengstenberg regards this two-
fold division of the Psalm as a misapprehension of
the poet's design.
These
exceptions, however, concern the husk only; they do not touch
the kernel of the argument. It is not the law, but
the law as
Jehovah's enactment that is praised. And phrase the matter
as
one will, the fact remains that, as Riehm put Hitzig's argument,
"the identity of the Creator of the universe and the Giver of
the
law is a fundamental thought of the Hebrew
theocracy." It is
embodied in the theocratic constitution, being
implied in the
monotheism of the first commandment, in which
Lawgiver
forbids His people to have any other gods before Him;
and it is expressed in the fourth commandment, in
the words "in
six days Jehovah made heaven and earth, the sea,
and all that in
them is.” It
is voiced by the prophets; as by Jeremiah in chapter
x. 10-16. This argument has justly made a deep
impression on
criticism. In the general principle that an inner
connection was
felt, Hitzig has been
followed by Hengstenberg, Alexander, De-
litzsch, Schultz. Even most of
those critics who deny the unity of
the Psalm frankly admit that the collector who
united the two frag-
ments was goverend
by some such unifying principle. So Hupfeld,
as already de Wette, Ewald and Bottcher; Nowack also; and Kirk-
patrick, citing Amos iv. 13, v. 7, 8; and Baethgen. As Cheyne
expresses it: "By an afterthought the two
parts of the Psalm were
brought into relation" (The Book of the Psalms, first edition,
p. 221).
358 THE
Reuss saw the consequence of such an admission; and
proceeding
consistently, he pronounced the two
parts of the present Psalm
to be distinct odes, which should not be joined
together, much less
be printed as one. And he defended the integrity
and completeness
of the first poem, notwithstanding that it breaks
off with startling
suddenness, declaring that the abrupt ending is
"a sign of greater
antiquity, which expended as yet no great industry
on form and
finish." Duhm follows Reuss, except that he regards the first poem
as a fragment. He follows Ewald
in his opinion that the lost con-
clusion celebrated the moon as
the ruler of the night. Reuss is
pleased to describe his separation of Psalm xix
into two psalms and
his numbering of them xviii and xix as a departure
from rabbinical
tradition. It is a departure from more than
rabbinical tradition,
for the Psalm was a unit when the Greek version was
made. But
though consistent, Reuss
does not escape the force of the argument.
It
must be admitted that both parts can, to quote the words of
Hupfeld,
"be embraced under one common abstract category."*
It
may therefore be regarded as fairly settled that there is an inner
connection of thought between the two parts.
DIFFERENCE IN RHYTHM.
As other evidence of diversity of
authorship difference in rhythm
has been urged. What is the difference in rhythm?
De Wette
drew attention to the greater length of the lines
and the diminished
vivacity of the rhythm in the second half of the
poem. But not
until 1855 was the difference in tone and rhythm
described more
specifically. In that year Hupfeld wrote: "The first [part is] in
genuine lyric manner, enthusiastic and with
simple two-membered
or three-membered
verses; the second in its didactic portion is calm,
sententious, with long periods or verses invariably
four-membered,
or, as he or his editor afterward stated the
matter with nicer dis-
crimination, "two double members, each double
member consisting
of a stronger and a weaker member [the latter of]
which merely
adds a predicate . . . . as
an echo," thus:
The
law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
The
testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple.
In
this conception of the verse he follows Delitzsch,
who in 1859
noticed the caesura in the lines of the second
part. "In the second
part . . . . comes the caesural
scheme, which as it were bounds
*
Hupfeld raises a question of date which will be
considered in its proper place.
The
question of date, however, does not concern the question of unity.
CRITICISM
OF THE NINETEENTH PSALM. 359
higher, draws deeper breaths, and surges like the rise
and fall of
waves."
It was Budde
who, as a result of his notable study of the Lamenta-
tions of Jeremiah (Z. A. T. W., 1882, 1-52), introduced the
designa-
tion "lamentation
verse" for those features of the second part of
the nineteenth Psalm which had been pointed out by Hupfeld and
Delitzsch. The lamentation scheme
or measure is a long line broken
by the caesura into two unequal parts, of which
the first is longer
than the second. In the nineteenth Psalm this scheme
runs regu-
larly through verses 8-10; it
is found in verse 11, where in each line
the first member is longer than the second and
hence congruent with
the scheme, although equal or about equal in the
number of words
(Budde, S. 7, 40); it occurs in verses 12-14a, and also in
14b by
shifting the position of the athnach
pause, as was first seen by
Delitzsch. Delitzsch
finds it in verse 15 also, by shifting the ath-
nach pause:
Acceptable
be the words of my mouth and the
meditation of my heart
In thy sight, 0 Jehovah, my
rock and my redeemer.
But
Budde regards this verse as a closing verse formed by
the addi-
tion of a third member.* Wellhausen considers the verse a liturgical
addition to the Psalm. It divides somewhat
awkwardly into one
double-membered line, according to the
lamentation scheme, fol-
lowed by a short line, thus:
Let
the words of my mouth be acceptable, and the meditation of my heart in
thy sight,
Jehovah, my rock and my redeemer.
Or
following the Septuagint, which bears witness to the presence
of the word "continually" in this verse
in the manuscript used
by the Greek translators, Baethgen,
Duhm, and Cheyne (in the
revised edition of The Book of Psalms) emend the present Hebrew
text. With this emendation the closing line, as
defined by the
two critics last named, shows the familiar meter
3-2 once more.
Verse
15 then reads:
Let the words of my mouth be acceptable and the meditation of my heart
Before thee continually,
0 Jehovah, my rock and my redeemer.
The
scheme of the lament thus runs from verse 8 into or through
verse 14, and even into or through verse 15.
It was assumed by de Wette—and the argument has been taken
* So likewise Nowack.
360 THE
up by Hupfeld, Ewald in the third edition, Reuss
and others since—
that the difference in rhythm or poetical scheme
indicates diversity
of authorship. But analogy does not bear out this
assumption.
Other
Psalms, of which the unity is unquestioned, show this poetical
form in a part only, just as in Psalm xix, and not
throughout. In
Ps.
lxv, the verses 6-9 are a unit in thought and form a
complete
division in the treatment of the theme; these
verses, but not the
rest of the poem, follow this scheme (Delitzsch, Budde). Ps. lxxxiv
consists of two parts: the blessedness of
intimate communion with
God
(verses 2-8, English 1-7) and a prayer by the Psalmist that he
may share in this communion (verses 9-13). The
former part runs
in the lamentation measure, except its last verse,
according to
Budde (striking out "where she may lay her
young," v. 4, Z. A.
T. W., 1882, p. 40). Truly,
then, the fact that a portion of a
Psalm,
even when forming a unit of thought, is distinguished
from the rest of the poem by running in this measure
is not in
itself an evidence of diverse authorship.
Furthermore, Hupfeld,
or his editor, even after he had Delitzsch's
commentary in his hands, was able to detect the
scheme in Ps. xix
in verses 8-11 only. Riehm
discovered in verses 12-15 not the
lamentation measure, but the recurrence of the
structure which
prevails in the first part of the Psalm; and Gratz, so late as 1882,
declares that "the last three verses of the
prayer neglect the
[lamentation]
form entirely." Delitzsch and Budde, and others in
their train, are right in comprehending all or
practically all of the
second part of the Psalm under one structural scheme
of verse;
yet at the same time Hupfeld,
Riehm and Gratz are clearly
right
in their perception of a difference between verses
8-11 and verses
12-15.
Ewald had also felt something of this difference. The
structure of the verse still follows the
lamentation scheme, but the
rhythm has perceptibly changed. The change is perceptible
even
to readers of the English version. While all can
be embraced under
the scheme of the lament, yet the praise of
Jehovah's law has its
own measure. This allotment of a distinct measure
to each theme
is significant. It recalls the suggestion of de Wette's friend that
the change in style between the first and second
parts of the Psalm
might be due to the radical change of subject.
Moreover, the
change of measure with theme does not mark this
portion of the
Psalm
only, but characterizes the whole poem, and recurs con-
stantly throughout. Each minor
theme has its own measure, prob-
ably without conscious effort on the poet's part;
each change of
thought is invariably accompanied by change in
the form of the
CRITICISM
OF THE NINETEENTH PSALM. 361
verse; and the keynote of the characteristic scheme
of the second
part of the Psalm is struck in the first part, in
verses 4 and 5.
Notice
that even the slight change from verses 8-10 to the summa-
rizing statement in verse 11
is subtly marked, while yet the lamenta-
tion scheme is retained.
Verse
2 4
4
The heavens as a whole by day and
3 4 night proclaim God's glory.
Eight
ordinary lines or 4
members of the
verse. 4 4
4
3
The proclamation described: inarticu-
5 4 late and inaudible, yet world-wide.
4
The sun's tabernacle and exuberant
6 4 strength.
Six ordinary lines or 4
members 7 3
3
or 2 The
sun's dominion.
3
8 3-2
Eight long lines broken
3-2
by the caesura 9 3-2 Jehovah's
law enthusiastically de-
3-2 scribed.
10 3-2
3-2
11 2-2* Summarizing
statement.
2-2†
12 4--3
13 3-2
Six long lines broken by 14
4-3 The
psalmist in relation to Jehovah's
the caesura. 3-2 law and to Jehovah his Redeemer.
15‡ 4-2
2-2
Further, if the fifteenth verse be
included as an integral part of
the Psalm, as is generally done—and even though it
be a liturgi-
cal formula, the author himself could employ it as
a fitting conclu-
sion to his own poem (Olshausen)—then each division of the first
* The part before the crosura is much longer than the part after it. But as
the text is conjecturally restored by D. H. Muller
(Strophenbau,
p. 60), the
meter is still 3-2, 3-2, thus:
The
statutes of Jehovah are desirable beyond
gold and fine gold,
His
words are sweeter than honey and the droppings of the comb.
† The part before the cresura is slightly longer than the part after it.
‡ As traditionally accented, 6-4. Delitzsch, by removing the athnach
accent
to the preceding word, obtains two lines, 4-2 and
2-2. If the text is emended,
the last line may become 3-2.
362 THE
part bears a numerical relation to the corresponding
division of the
second part. Fourteen ordinary short lines or
verse-members in
the first part, just the same number of long caesural
lines in the
second part; and each division of fourteen lines is
subdivided into
two sections, one of eight and the other of six
lines. These two
phenomena, namely, of a subtle change of rhythm
with each subtle
change of theme and the numerical relations between
the two parts,
go far to prove that two fragments were not put
together; but that,
if the first part is a fragment, the second part
was written for it,
in view of its structure, to be its conclusion,
and was matched to it.
These
phenomena not only serve reasonably to narrow down the
theories in regard to the origin of the Psalm to
two, namely, a frag-
ment furnished with a new
conclusion or a composition by one
author throughout, but they remove all need for the
former hypo-
thesis.
And now in regard
to the date.
It will be recalled that Ewald assigned the first six verses of the
nineteenth Psalm to David, and the remaining eight
verses to a
poet of a later age. The evidence of lateness he
discerned in the
decline in poetic vigor, in the Psalmist's
appreciation for the law
and apprehension of its spirituality, in his
anxiety lest he be seduced
or driven to sin by the presumptuous, and in the
art of the verse:
four distinct indications of a date not earlier than
the eighth or
seventh centuries, or, as Ewald
said in his second edition, the sev-
enth century, or, as in his
third edition, the seventh or sixth century
before Christ.
DECLINE IN POETIC VIGOR.
Ewald's
argument from the loss of vigor is characteristic of him.
Vigor
and sublimity in a Psalm form one of his criteria for Davidic
authorship, and lack of them is evidence of the
decadent age in
Hebrew
poetry which he defined as included in the seventh and sixth
centuries. There is an element of truth in these
criteria in general,
but Ewald failed to make
out a case in the nineteenth Psalm.
Hitzig, whose criticism of the Psalms was governed by
the same
tests as Ewald's, found no
evidence of deterioration in the nine-
teenth Psalm, and
unhesitatingly accepted its unity and Davidic
authorship. Maurer and von Lengerke,
who agreed with Ewald in
dating the second part about the time of the exile,
felt no force in
Ewald's contention that the second part is inferior
to the first in
point of vigor; and with Hitzig
they held to the unity of the Psalm,
and accounted for difference in tone and rhythm by
the difference of
CRITICISM
OF THE NINETEENTH PSALM. 363
theme. Hupfeld, who like Ewald assigned the two parts of the
Psalm
to different authors and dates, based no argument on the
inferiority of one part to the other. Ewald's contention that an
essential loss of vigor is observable in the
second part of the nine-
teenth Psalm, a decline in
power which is an indication of date,
has made no impression upon criticism. It dropped
at once out
of sight; evidently not because of critical
prejudice, but simply
because there was nothing in it.
APPRECIATION
FOR JEHOVAH'S LAW.
A second indication of lateness Ewald, as already mentioned,
found in the high regard for the written law and the
apprehension
of its spirituality. This argument is important.
Probably one
does not go too far in asserting that it is the
supreme argument, to
which all else is subsidiary. It derives its force
from the criticism
of the Pentateuch. Until the close of the
eighteenth century the
nineteefth Psalm was commonly
regarded as Davidic. It was not
universally ascribed to the poet-king; Paulus, for example, sug-
gested Solomon as its author.
But the denial of the Psalm to
David
was an individual matter. It did not divide critics into two
camps. Over against believers in the Davidic
authorship of the
Psalm
there was no opposing party standing for a definite poet or for
a certain historical period, organized by a
tangible principle of oppo-
sition, fighting under one
standard. But with the dawn of the nine-
teenth century the unifying
principle emerged out of Pentateuchal
criticism. In 1805 de Wette
was advocating the dating of Genesis
in the reign of David, and Deuteronomy in the
reign of Josiah.
Soon
afterward Ewald, with firmer grasp of the material,
dated
large portions of Genesis likewise in the early
period of the monar-
chy, and assigned the Book
of Deuteronomy and the completion of
the Hexateuch to the
second half of Manasseh's reign, or about
660
B.C. This critical position soon reflected itself in the criticism
of the Psalms. Ewald
ascribed to David the first part of the nine-
teenth Psalm and the eighth
Psalm, which take up the theme of
the first chapter of Genesis and sing the glory of
the Creator; but
the prayer in the second part of the nineteenth
Psalm indicates that
the written law in all its parts was observed. To
what date does
this fact point? Now the priestly ritual of
Leviticus had, according
to Ewald, ardent
defenders and eulogists at the beginning of the
monarchy; and appreciation for the moral law and
the apprehen-
sion of its spirituality
come to fine expression in the Book of
Deuteronomy. The author of
Deuteronomy, according to Ewald,
364 THE
was likewise the final reviser of the entire
Pentateuch and Joshua,
and wrote about the year 660 before Christ, in the
second half of
Manasseh's reign. With this conception of
Hebrew history Ewald
naturally, or rather necessarily, dates the second
part of the nine-
teenth Psalm after the
commencement of the eighth century, or,
on maturer thought,
after the opening of the seventh century, or
even in the sixth century. The terminus a quo was thought by
many to have been found. It remained fixed, with
unessential
modifications, just so long as the
great divisive critics held that
Deuteronomy
was the latest part of the Pentateuch. So Maurer
in 1838, because of the reference to the written
law, concluded that
the Psalm, verses 2-15 inclusive, was composed
about the time of
the exile. Von Lengerke
regarded it as pre-exilic; and, speaking
generally, he considered it a product of the
literary revival of the
seventh century which accompanied the newly
awakened apprecia-
tion for the law (S. xvii
and xxvii). "Pentateuchal criticism," he
says, "affords the surest guarantee for the
correctness of our result."
The terminus ad quem was, of course, not
established; and Justus
Olshausen in 1853, on other grounds than its
reference to the
written law, declared the poem to be
post-exilic.
But a new
ages of the Levitical law
and Deuteronomy were reversed, the
priestly development was placed after the
prophetic, the document
heretofore known as the older Elohist
ceased to be regarded as
ancient, and the Pentateuch was declared not to
have received its
final form until after the exile. At once the eighth
Psalm and the
first part of the nineteenth were dated, conformably
to the new
view of Gen. i, in the
post-exilic period (cp. Kuenen; Wellhausen
on Ps. viii; Cheyne, Origin, p. 201); and the second part of
the
nineteenth Psalm, by reason of the praise of the
law, must belong
to the same late date (Kuenen,
1865; Gratz, 1882; Cheyne,
1889,
p.
202, 238; cp. Nowack).
This particular argument for a late
date might be met in one of
two ways: either by referring to the defense of the
Mosaic authorship
of the Pentateuch, or else, while granting the
premises of the divi-
sive critics and accepting
the dates assigned by them to the several
hypothetical documents, by
attempting to show that even these
presuppositions do not necessitate a
late date for the Psalm.
Riehm adopted the latter method. De Wette, Ewald, Maurer,
and Riehm himself held to
the Davidic authorship of 2 Sam. xxii,
that is Psalm xviii. By pointing to verses 23, 24
and 31 (22, 23
and 30, English enumeration) of that Psalm, Riehm was able to
CRITICISM
OF THE NINETEENTH PSALM. 365
show an appreciation for the law and an apprehension
of its spirit-
uality by David himself no
less keen than is expressed in the nine-
teenth Psalm. Granting that
Deuteronomy was a product of the
seventh century, nevertheless evidence was at
hand, in the eigh-
teenth Psalm, that the praise
of the law had been in men's hearts
and on their lips several centuries earlier. Nowack made an ineffec-
tual rejoinder; one indeed
that was quite unnecessary, since the
ground on which Riehm stood
had been swept from under his
feet. The Davidic authorship of the eighteenth
Psalm, beyond
possibly its substratum, was denied, largely for
the reason that its
diction has affinities with the vocabulary of
Deuteronomy, and
because it contains praise of the law Advocates
of a late date for
Deuteronomy
were coming to advocate an equally late or yet later
date for both the eighteenth and the nineteenth
Psalms.
Riehm's
argument, however, though antiquated for the use for
which it was intended, has renewed value in the
debate with the
most modern school of critics. Kuenen,
Gratz and Cheyne regard
the eighteenth Psalm as pre-exilic. Accordingly, so
far as the praise
of the law is concerned, the nineteenth Psalm also
may have been
in existence before the exile. Professor Cheyne sees this. "Even
if not Davidic, may not this fragment [Ps. xix.
8-11] belong to the
Josian age—to those halcyon days which followed the
publication of
the first Scripture? This is at least plausible. If
a Josian poet
wrote Ps. xviii. 21-24 and 31, why should he not have
written
Ps. xix. 8-11?" (Origin of the Psalter, p. 238).
The signs are not
wanting, however, that even this ground is about
to be swept away.
Professor
Cheyne adds to his discussion the significant remark:
"This
at any rate [between 621 and 608 B.C.] is the earliest possible
date [for the eighteenth Psalm]. I accept it not
without much hesi-
tation, and I cannot complain
if some prefer to regard the Psalm
as an imaginative work of the exile" (Origin, p. 206); and Well-
hausen claims that "the
[eighteenth] Psalm was written in the
later days of Judaism."
But if there is likelihood that the
eighteenth Psalm will be de-
clared to be a post-exilic
production, there remains the Book of
Deuteronomy,
which was found in the temple during the reign of
Josiah.
"Certainly, Deuteronomy is a ‘rich and varied handbook,’
not perhaps unworthy even of such a glowing
eulogy" as is con-
tained in the nineteenth
Psalm. "’It sought to place the whole
moral and spiritual life upon a new basis"' (Cheyne, Origin,
p. 238).
In
a section admittedly as early as Josiah's reign, chapters v to
xxvi or xii to xxvi, it lays emphasis on the
spirituality of the laws
366 THE
and urgently insists upon their observance. Ps. xix. 8-15 breathes
the same spirit, and may likewise be pre-exilic.
So, too, as in these
verses, the value of heart religion was appreciated by
Jeremiah in
the same age (vii. 23; xxxi. 33, 34; xxxii. 40;
xxxiii. 8). And long
before Jeremiah's time welfare to the body at least
was talked of
as a reward for keeping Jehovah's commandments and
statutes
(Ex.
xv. 26J); and in the Decalogue itself the spirituality of the
laws was clearly intimated and their pertinence to
the desires as
well as to the acts of men was laid bare (Ex. xx.
17).* Surely
the Psalmist's praise of the written law and his
consciousness of
its relation to the inner life as well as to the
conduct of men do
not involve that the Psalm was composed after the
exile. Verses
8-15
may have been sung in the first temple.
THE ALLUSION TO THE PRESUMPTUOUS.
The suggestion was hazarded that this
praise of the law is the
main argument for a late date, and that on
examination all others
will be found to be subsidiary. Ewald
brought forward a third
matter as evidence of the late origin of the Psalm, as
will be remem-
bered. He argued from the
reference to the presumptuous or
arrogant:
Guard thy servant from the arrogant,
That they may not
have dominion over him.
Now
the word has often been rendered by presumption or pre-
sumptuous sins; but it may be translated
presumptuous men, and
it is contended that the historic situation may
then be judged from a
similar allusion in Ps. v. 6:
The arrogant shall not stand in thy
sight,
Thou hatest
all workers of iniquity.
Rudinger, in the year 1580, arguing from verse 11
of the fifth Psalm,
concluded that the arrogant of verse 6 are the
rebels under the
leadership of Absalom. In Ps. lxxxvi. 14, where the same word
occurs, Rosenmiiller
understood David to refer to Saul and his
court. De Wette, making the
comparison between Ps. v and xix,
judged the arrogant who are mentioned in Ps. v. 6 to
be perhaps
* The book of the covenant, with the
ten commandments, had been long in
existence. As a law book it consists of formal
precepts, and does not give ex-
pression to admiration of the
goodness and wholesomeness of the laws, and only
incidentally or, as some critics
contend, not originally to the motive of love.
Yet
even so, how long must it be before thoughtful, earnest men in
would begin to appreciate the moral grandeur of the
Decalogue and to discover
the beneficent effect upon man of keeping Jehovah's
law?
CRITICISM
OF THE NINETEENTH PSALM. 367
national enemies. He quoted Gurtler
as holding a similar opinion
in regard to these arrogant ones, and as referring
the fifth Psalm
to the time of persecution under Antiochus Epiphanes. He also
cited the view of Ferrandus
that the arrogant enemies of Ps. v are
the Babylonians. But de Wette
made no attempt to date the
nineteenth Psalm. Ewald
understood the Psalmist to refer to the
strong party among the people, toward the end of the
seventh
century, who were indifferent to religion and
frivolous, and neglected
the temple partly from disdain for it and partly
from an evil con-
science.
From these various ascriptions it is
obvious that an allusion to
the presumptuous affords a basis of but doubtful
value in seeking
to determine the date of a Psalm. If the
approximate time of the
poem's composition is first known, an allusion to the
presumptuous
can aid in bringing the date within narrower
limits. But in itself
it is not determinative. It can be adjusted to
different periods
of the history: to mention only those already
proposed, to the
time of David, to the seventh and sixth centuries,
to the persecu-
tions under Antiochus Epiphanes. Maurer and von Lengerke
quietly dropped this argument, and relied upon
the reference to the
written law; while Olshausen
frankly confessed that if each Psalm
is considered by itself, an allusion in it to
oppression by the enemy
may be adjusted to any one of several calamities
which befell
matter to rest in uncertainty. He had already
appropriated the
theory that the speaker in the Psalms does not
represent an indi-
vidual, but is a
personification of the Church or nation; and he
now proceeded to group the Psalms containing
references to enemies.
His
predecessors had done so in part, Ewald, for example,
in his
argument on the date of the nineteenth Psalm, had
referred to the
frequent occurrence of a similar prayer in other
Psalms which he
assigned to the seventh and sixth centuries. But
0lshausen groups
all the Psalms which contain a prayer or a
complaint or a thanks-
giving concerning the enemies of the congregation. Two
classes
of foes are mentioned in these Psalms; and with
the light of all
focused in one beam, "it becomes clear that
the Psalmist is not
concerned with merely a struggle of
the heathen, but along with the conflict goes the
struggle of
with godless and dangerous men within the nation
itself, with
apostates; so that while
foreign powers the loyal congregation of the
pious is opposing
hostile fellow-countrymen." Taking this
comprehensive view, "it
368 THE
cannot for a moment be doubtful," says 0lshausen,
" that the
nation was so situated but once in its history, so far
as we know,
namely in the times beginning with the persecution by
Antiochus
Epiphanes"
(pp. 6, 7).
This classification includes the nineteenth
Psalm. But the principle of grouping thus introduced
by 0lshausen,
although it has been enthusiastically adopted and
developed by
Prof.
Cheyne, is, we believe, essentially vicious,
prejudging the date
of individual Psalms and proving itself fallacious
when applied
to the literature of other peoples. We might as
well group Charles
Wesley's
hymn of 1749:
Soldiers of Christ, arise,
And put your armor on,
Strong in the strength
which God supplies
Through His Eternal Son,
with Baring-Gould's hymn of 1865:
Onward, Christian
soldiers,
Marching as to war,
With the cross of Jesus
Going on before:
Christ the Royal Master
Leads against the foe;
Forward into battle,
See His banners go,
and insist that they had their birth together. Or
we might com-
pare "Art thou weary, art thou languid?"
by Stephen. of St. Sabas,
725-794,
with its translation by the Rev. John Mason Neale in
1862,
and again insist that the conditions which gave birth to the
one could not exist one thousand years later, to
make the same
encouragement timely. Or we might
place Ps. xlvi side by side
with Luther's imitation of it, "Ein' feste Burg," and declare
that
both must be the product of the same age. As Prof.
Robertson
has stated it: "Neither individuals nor
nations have the habit of
exhausting a subject at one time and never
recurring to it" (Poetry
and Religion of the Psalms, pp. 51-56).
0lshausen's contention did not
prevail with his contemporaries.
Perhaps
it influenced Ewald to defend his own position; for
in the
third edition of his commentary, in presenting his
argument anew
for assigning the Psalm to the period covered by
the seventh and
sixth centuries, he adds that the fear of seduction
or compulsion
to heathenism "increased still more when the
new Jerusalem was
actually under the domination of the
heathen." Hupfeld was
uninfluenced by 0lshausen's argument;
he reverted to de Wette's
CRITICISM
OF THE NINETEENTH PSALM. 369
comparison of the several parts of the second half
of the Psalm
with the late Ps. cxix;
and on the basis of the relationship between
these two Psalms, taken in connection with the
general subject of
verses 8-15, he merely held this section of the
nineteenth Psalm to
be later than the first section. Riehm, in editing Hupfeld's work
in 1868, greatly weakened a part of the argument
by pointing out
the obvious fact that Ps. cxix
may echo Ps. xix.*
Up to this last date those who
rejected the Davidic authorship
of the nineteenth Psalm were not compelled to
assign it to a later
period than Ewald had done.
"The presumptuous ones" did not
stand in their way. It was the rise of the Graf-Wellhausen school
and the convenience, in accordance with its
premises, of dating the
praise of the law and the knowledge of Gen. i in the period after
the exile that made it necessary to locate "the
presumptuous
ones" also after the exile. And so Reuss, Gratz, Wellhausen,
Duhm. The argument ultimately
rests, not upon the allusion to
the arrogant, but on the theory that
came late in time. And the debate has been conducted
it will be
observed, without calling in question the
translation "presumptuous
ones" rather than "presumptuous
sins."
THE RHYTHMIC MEASURE.
The
rhythmic measure of the second part is urged as evidence that
the Psalm is a late composition. According to Baethgen, "that
this metrical form [the so-called lamentation
strophe] has been
employed for a subject to which according to its
origin it is unsuit-
able is evidence that the second part belongs to a
later age." The
assumption that originally the measure was used in
laments only
calls for no remark here. It has no pertinence to the
argument.
Two
other questions, however, are prompted by Baethgen's asser-
tion: first, how ancient is
the custom of employing this scheme for
the lament? and second,
how early was this scheme adopted for
other themes than the lament? In regard to the first
of these
questions Budde himself,
the chief investigator of the lamentation
measure, in the article already cited, expresses
his conviction that
the scheme was employed for the lament in hoary
antiquity, reach-
ing back before the time of
David (p. 44). As to the second ques-
tion, which is the
all-important one in the determination of the
* The relationship of verses 8-15
with Ps. cxix has also been urged by
Baethgen as a
reason for regarding the nineteenth Psalm as post-exilic. When,
however, his argument as a whole is examined, it
is found that his other premises
have compelled him to accept a post-exilic date.
370 THE
date of the nineteenth Psalm, Budde
cites examples of the adoption
of the scheme for other themes in pre-exilic
times. In the Book of
Nahum,
written, as all scholars agree, between 664 and 607 B.C., in
chapter ii. 1-3, Hebrew enumeration, are
"seven tolerable verses"
in this measure, although "the sense is
little suited to a lamentation,
being a threat of punishment for
promise for
admittedly penned during the eighth century B.C.,
is cited by Budde.
It
is an accusation laid against the people, yet is
constructed
according to the lamentation scheme; verses 7 and
8 being such
just as they stand, and verses 9 to 11a becoming
such by a mere
change of the Masoretic
accents. Budde's list of examples from
pre-exilic literature, of which two have been
mentioned, may be
increased. Women welcomed Saul and David on their
return from
the slaughter of the Philistines with song and
dance and the music
of timbrels, singing one
to another:
Saul has slain his
thousands,
And
David his ten thousands.
This
antiphonal song of triumph is cast in the measure of the lament:
three words are in the first member, two in the
second; and the
predicate verb is in the first. In
the didactic ode of Moses (Deut.
xxxii),
the prevalent measure, which consists of lines containing
two members of equal length, is ultimately, after
the premoditory
note has been thrice sounded, in verses 24, 25, 27,
interrupted to
give place to six consecutive verses in the
lamentation measure,
verses 28-32a. And in the Blessing of Moses (Deut.
xxxiii), the
benediction of Levi is almost entirely in lines of
the lament. Now
these three passages are admittedly pre-exilic. The
Blessing of
Moses
is agreed to be at least as early as the passage cited by Budde
from Hosea, probably earlier. The account of the
welcome of Saul
and David is commonly regarded as earlier still. It
is thus quite
evident that the scheme of verse which appears
in the second part
of the nineteenth Psalm was not uncommonly used
for other purposes
than the lament during a long period of the history.
A didactic
poem might be composed in this measure after the
exile, certainly.
Its
use in didactic and emotional writings before the exile is fully
attested, and is definitely traced back well
toward the time of David.
The
nineteenth Psalm cannot be dated by an appeal to this measure.
In recent years two more arguments
have been put forward as
grounds for regarding the nineteenth Psalm as a
late product of
the literary activity of the Hebrews.
CRITICISM
OF THE NINETEENTH PSALM. 371
THE DICTION.
It is argued that the language of
the nineteenth Psalm betrays a
late date. For example, Kuenen,
speaking of the second part, or
perhaps of the whole ode, says that verses 8-15
agree "both in
language and the choice of words with the younger
portions of the
Psalter
(comp. Pss. i, cxix)"; seeming to imply that they do not agree
in either of these respects with the literature
older than the exile,
for he dates Pss. i and cxix about the time of Ezra
(Historisch-
kritisch Onderzoek, derde
Deel, Blz. 281, 303). So
sweeping an asser-
tion would, however, be
quite unwarranted; for with three excep-
tions* the root, and in most
cases the form also, of every word in the
Psalm
are attested as in use among the Hebrews before the exile
by their concurrence in literature that is
universally admitted to
belong to the early period. Wellhausen
describes the situation
somewhat differently from Kuenen
and, combining two matters,
says “The language and contents agree in proving
that both por-
tions [of the Psalm] belong
to the same late period." But Baethgen
is definite. "A couple of strong Aramaisms in the first part (verses
3,
5) make it advisable not to date this part either before the time of
Job." With less restraint as to the date, but
with equal modera-
tion regarding the diction,
Prof. Cheyne says that "the Aramaism
hiwwah, not to urge rakia’, confirms the natural view that this
Psalm
of creation is post-exilic" (Book of
Psalms, ed. of 1904, Vol. I,
p.
75).
Of these three words, which are
looked upon as indications of the
date of the poem, rakia’, firmament, is used in the first chapter of
Genesis,
so that the argument advanced really rests upon the date
which is assigned to that chapter. At any rate,
however, "both
the idea and the root are good Hebrew" (Cheyne, Origin,
p. 468), the
root being found in pre-exilic literature (2 Sam.
xxii. 43; Jer. x. 9)
and belonging to the common Semitic stock (Dillmann on Gen. i. 1).
The
two other words are characterized as Aramaisms.
Regarding
millah, word, to which Baethgen evidently refers, its root occurs
as a verb in Ps. cvi. 2,
and is there commented on by Giesebrecht as
follows: "Millel, speak, which one were
inclined to regard as an
* The exceptions are hiwwah, naba',
and shegi'oth.
Of the last-mentioned word
Prof.
Cheyne has said: "Shegagah occurs seventeen times
in P. C. (Lev., Num.,
Josh.),
twice in Eccles., but also in 1 Sam. xiv. 24 Sept. (see Driver, ad loc.). The
latter passage at any rate, if we accept it as
genuine, is pre-exilic. We may
assume, therefore, that both shegagah and its synonym shegi'ah are early" (Ori-
gin,
p. 468). Compare also shagah,
Is. xxviii. 7, before 702 B.C., according to Prof.
Cheyne; and its noun in Gen. xliii.
12 J. Another of the exceptions, the verb
naba',
occurs in Prov. xv. 2, 28; xviii.
4, in one of the two sections of the book
expressly assigned to Solomon.
372 THE
Aramaism, is found outside of Job
and Proverbs in Gen. xxi. 7
also, in a Jehovistic
connection" (Z. A. T. W., 1881,
S. 296).
Accordingly
the word was in use among the Hebrews as early as the
eighth century before Christ. The noun itself is found
in "the last
words of David" (2 Sam. xxiii. 2), a poem
assigned by Prof. Cheyne
to the age of Josiah (Origin, p. 69). It is the remaining word
hiwwah, show forth, which Drs.
Baethgen and Cheyne concur in
regarding as an Aramaism.
This verb is of frequent occurrence in
Aramaic. In Hebrew it is met outside of this
Psalm in the Book of
Job only. It is common to several Semitic
languages; it belongs to
the Semitic stock. How late, then, is the Hebrew
literature in
which it occurs? Let us see.
It is known that influences were at
work in the northern part of
to keep alive among the people, or to introduce
among them, words
which were prominent in the Aramaic vocabulary. The
evidence of
this fact is furnished by the song of Deborah and
the writings of
the northern prophets Hosea and Jonah. That this
same influence
was strong in the southern part of the land for
half a century or
more before the exile is commonly admitted, and is
abundantly
evident in the pages of Jeremiah and Habakkuk.
That it was felt
still earlier is witnessed by such proper names as Asa, king of
and Ishvi, son of King
Saul; Migron, a
Jattir, a town of Judah, and Eshtaol
in the lowland; by a verb like
millel and a noun like shalit.* In each
of these cases the word or its
root is a common Ararnaic
term, not known in Hebrew literature or
only in Psalms and the later Hebrew writings; and
yet a sporadic
occurrence like shalit in
Gen. xlii. 6 and millel
in Gen. xxi. 7 and
many proper names betray the fact that such words
were on the
lips of the people of
as at least the eighth century before Christ, and
even in many in-
* Asa, the name
of a great king of
is the only trace in Hebrew of the well-known
Aramaic equivalent of the Hebrew
rapha', to heal. The name Ishvi contains a root common in the Aramaic and not
unknown in northern
used by people in
and by the song of David (2 Sam. xxii. 34). The
root of Migron is found in the
Aramaic,
but is not met with in Hebrew literature, outside of the Psalms and
Ezekiel;
yet in the name Migron it was familiar to the Hebrews
from the time of
David onward. The name of the town Jattir is an Aramaic adjective, meaning
excellent; and, though not found as such in any
Hebrew writing, was in the mouth
of the people. Similarly Eshtaol
is a fine Aramaic form, with the final vowel
modified according to the Hebrew habit of
pronunciation. The occurrence of the
word shalit, ruler, in
Gen. xlii. 6, E and of course JE, is the sole witness to the
existence of this common Aramaic word in early
Hebrew.
CRITICISM
OF THE NINETEENTH PSALM. 373
stances in the times of David. It is not
necessary to inquire
whether they were importations from the Aramaeans or were sur-
vivals of the old vocabulary
common to the two peoples. Such
words were actually there in those early days before
the exile,
however they came to be there. They were within
reach of the
literary man, if he had occasion to resort to
them.
The Psalmist had such occasion now.
While singing his hymn,
and while yet unfolding his first thought, he had
practically ex-
hausted the ordinary synonyms
of two words; and he was obliged
to draw upon terms of rarer use in literature. He
had already
employed the verbs declare, show and utter; and
he needed another
verb of similar meaning. The poverty of the English
language is
revealed by the fact that the translators repeat
the word show. The
Hebrew
poet was able to give expression to the same idea in a
fourth form, hiwwah, belonging to the common Semitic stock. He
had also used speech, words, voice, line; he
required yet another
noun of the same import and found it at hand,
although common in
Aramaic, among his own people in their use of
the root millel.
And
it does not escape attention that a poet is using language; and
poetry is conspicuous in the literature of all peoples
by reason
of its fondness for rare expressions. It is clear
from this
exposition that the diction of the nineteenth Psalm
shows the
same characteristics as does Hebrew literature
generally for a
century and a half before the exile—features of
which traces are
found in yet earlier examples of the Hebrew
language—and more-
over in the case of the nineteenth Psalm the reason
for the choice of
words is at once evident.
THE LITERARY
REVIVAL OF HEBREW MYTHOLOGY.
It is asserted that Ps. xix. 2-7
belongs "to that literary revival
of Hebrew mythology during and after the exile of
which the Books
of Job and to some extent Jonah are
monuments." "The swift-
running hero Shemesh,"
the sun, a fine myth "debased by unholy
association," was "transfigured," and
was thus reclaimed "from
superstition to the service of the
Most High" (Cheyne, Origin of
the Psalter, p. 202).
It is true that on certain private
interpretations there are not a
few mythological allusions in Hebrew writings which
are assigned
by the Graf-Wellhausen
school to the exile and the succeeding
period. Leviathan and Rahab
are possible examples.
But are no similar allusions found
in the literature of pre-exilic
days? In Prof. Cheyne's
opinion cherubim and seraphim are
374 THE
mythological creations for the storm
cloud and the lightning, and
both find place in pre-exilic literature (Gen. iii.
24, J; 2 Samii. xx.
11,
pre-exilic according to Cheyne, Origin of the Psalter, p. 193, and
cp. p. 205 on the cherub; Isa.
vi. 2). In "a pre-exilic song-book
called
’The Book of the Upright,’" Joshua addresses the sun as
though it were a living object, and "speaks
almost as if he had Ps.
xix. 6 in his mind" (Cheyne,
Origin, pp. 192, 221). Prof. Cheyne
should be among the last to cite a mythological
allusion in a Psalm
as cogent evidence for a post-exilic date.
Moreover, the prophet
Amos
(ix. 3) makes a poetic allusion to the serpent which Prof.,
Gunkel interprets as the dragon Tiamat
of Babylonian myth.
(Schopfung u. Chaos, S. 81); and Deborah in her
"ancient song"
may perhaps be subsidizing a phrase of current
speech, in which
a reminiscence of heathen notions lingered, when
she poeti-
cally describes the stars
from their courses fighting against Sisera
(Judg. v. 20). At any rate her
description of the stars as fighting
from their courses parallels the Psalmist's
description of the sun
going forth as a bridegroom and rejoicing as a
runner. The
prophetess refers to the sun also in words like
unto the Psalmist's
when she says: "Be as the sun when he goeth forth in his might"
(Judg. v. 31). There should,
therefore, be no denial by Prof. Cheyne
of at least a willingness on the part of a Hebrew
poet who lived
before the exile to borrow beautiful imagery from
exploded myth-
ology and to employ figures
which still remained current in popular
speech. General features of this sort, even assuming
that their
origin lies in mythology, afford no evidence that a
Psalm is a late
production.
But why find mythology in the nineteenth
Psalm? For one to
speak of the tabernacle of the sun is not to give
credence to myth-
ology. The phrase "to
set a tabernacle" means, without a figure,
to provide a dwelling, or assign a place
(Alexander; comp. 1 Sam.
xiii.
2=home); and it may have this meaning in the Psalm. At
most the expression springs from a naive conception
of the universe
which lingered in current speech. More probably both
it and the
comparison of the sun to a radiant bridegroom and
to a runner
exulting in his strength and endurance are but
poetic imagery.
But
to whatever source the reference to the sun's tabernacle is due,
it proceeds from the same mental trait which led
the Hebrews to
speak of the foundations of the earth (Jer. xxxi. 37; Mic. vi. 2) and
the windows of heaven (Gen. vii. 11; 2 Kings vii.
2), of the cham-
bers which Jehovah hath builded for himself in the heavens (Amos
ix.
6) and the treasuries whence he bringeth forth the
wind (Jer. x
CRITICISM
OF THE NINETEENTH PSALM. 375
13),
of the wings of the wind (Hos. iv. 19) and the wings
of the sun
(Mal.
iii. 20= iv. 2, English version). Whether these allusions are
traced to myth, or to a naive conception of the
universe, or to poetic
imagination, they are all found in pre-exilic
literature, with the
exception of the citation from Malachi, as will be
noticed; and as
already noted, the figure by which the sun is
spoken of as going
forth in might is as old as the "ancient
song" of Deborah; so that
again it becomes clear that features of this sort
furnish no criterion
for adjudging a late date to the Psalm.
The crucial arguments against the
pre-exilic origin of the nine-
teenth Psalm which have been
advanced during the century of
modern Biblical criticism have now been examined.
There appears
to be no sound reason for denying that this fine
hymn had a place,
in the Psalter of the first temple. That it had
this place is suffi-
ciently declared by its ancient
title.
This
material is cited as from the public domain.
Please report any errors to Ted
Hildebrandt at: