THE PSALMS 
 
 ^30183? 
 
 in. THE PSALMS ; 
 
 The problems connected with the Psalter are endless, but those 
 most assiduously discussed during the past twenty-five years 
 may be grouped under four heads: (1) the historical question 
 of the origin of the Psalter as a collection, (2) the question of 
 the origin of the individual psalms, (3) the literary question of 
 the nature of Hebrew poetry, with its necessary accompaniment 
 of problems in textual criticism, and (4) the exegetical question 
 concerning the speaker in the psalms, whether the "I" of the 
 Psalter has an individual or a collective reference. The scholar 
 who can answer these questions successfully must be possessed 
 of an historical sense, a literary feeling, and an exegetical tact 
 of a very high order. Since the psalms are hymns, and as such 
 for the most part deal only with generalized or idealized experi- 
 ences, the problem of their date and place in the development of 
 the religion of Israel is a singularly complicated one. The dating 
 of the psalms must rest on established dates in the rest of Hebrew 
 literature, and one who undertakes the criticism of the Psalter 
 must have a very clear and well-balanced conception of the 
 problems of the religion of Israel. Without it the attempt to 
 discuss, for instance, the tradition of the Davidic authorship 
 of the psalms, or even their pie-exilic origin, would lead to no 
 secure results. Again, the question of the nature of Hebrew 
 poetry and its bearing upon textual criticism is one of the most 
 vexed questions of Old Testament study. Few combine a gift 
 for textual criticism with a fine literary sense. Finally, the 
 problem of the nature of the speaker in the Psalter is one of the 
 most fascinating and important, but at the same time one of 
 the most delicate of exegetical problems. 
 
 The literature upon these various subjects, unlike the literature 
 upon Chronicles, is enormous; but the recent commentaries, with 
 which the work of Dr. Briggs would naturally be compared, are 
 
 30 A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalms. By 
 Charles Augustus Briggs, D.D., D.Litt., Professor of Theological Encyclopaedia 
 and Symbolics, Union Theological Seminary, New York, and Emily Grace Briggs, 
 B.D. Two volumes. New York, 1906, 1907. 
 
70 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW 
 
 those of Baethgen in the Handkommentar, Duhm in the Kurzer 
 Hand-Commentar, and Kirkpatrick in the Cambridge Bible. The 
 first of these is marked by solid learning, clear exposition, and a 
 commendable agnosticism in the matter of dating the psalms, but 
 is perhaps too cautious in its textual criticism, and it is in no sense 
 a creative work. Kirkpatrick's commentary belongs to the more 
 elaborate and ambitious commentaries in the Cambridge Bible. 
 It is clear and informing on its exegetical side, though largely an 
 echo of Baethgen, but seems to be distinctly defective in its his- 
 torical criticism. Attempts to find suitable situations for the 
 psalms in David's life (compare, for example, the remarks on 
 Ps. 41) should be abandoned. Duhm's commentary is the work 
 of an expository genius, compact, clear-cut, illuminating, marked 
 by a speculative daring that often throws a flood of light upon 
 obscure passages or gives to what had become a platitude the 
 interest of a newly discovered truth. But it has the defects of its 
 author's other work. It is very one-sided, and maintains a theory 
 of the origin of the Psalter in the late Maccabean period which 
 conflicts with the external evidence and involves serious intrinsic 
 improbabilities. 31 Nevertheless, if the reader does not allow him- 
 self to be dazzled by Duhm, he can probably learn from his preg- 
 nant pages more about the crucial problems of the Psalter, and in 
 a shorter space of time, than from any other commentary. 
 
 As compared with the three works just mentioned, Briggs's 
 commentary is a vast thesaurus of statistical facts. In its learn- 
 ing it is like one of the post-reformation Biblical treatises rather 
 than a modern work. One can well believe that the labor of 
 forty years, as the author informs us, has been crammed into its 
 more than one thousand closely printed pages. As an example 
 of erudition, this commentary is likely to remain a monument, to 
 one of the most learned American scholars of this generation. 
 But is it an illuminating commentary? Does it make stimulating 
 and suggestive contributions to the solution of the problems above 
 referred to? This, if the present reviewer may be permitted to 
 
 31 For instance, the view that we have whole series of violently polemical 
 psalms, both Pharisaic and Sadducean, incorporated in our Psalter. How both 
 these hostile groups of psalms could have been inserted into the Psalter in the 
 short space of time which Duhm allows for its compilation after they were writ- 
 ten, is not made clear. 
 
THE PSALMS 71 
 
 express himself with absolute candor, it does not always appear 
 to do. It is possible that Briggs's positions have not all been 
 fully understood. The book is no easy reading. Its style is 
 not infrequently opaque; the author's "buts" and "fors," when 
 he provides them, often refer (like those of the Johannine gospel 
 and epistles) to something in his own mind rather than to any- 
 thing actually expressed, and the student is left to infer as best 
 he can the connections which the writer may have had in mind. 
 But those parts of the commentary which will be most severely 
 criticised in what follows have been studied with care, and the 
 effort honestly made to understand the positions to which excep- 
 tion has been taken. 
 
 Briggs's introduction treats at length of the Text, the Higher 
 Criticism, the Canonicity, and the Interpretation of the Psalter. 
 Under the caption "Higher Criticism" (pp. liv-xcii) are discussed 
 the origin and growth of the Psalter as a collection, and an entirely 
 new theory on this subject is advanced. Briefly, it is as follows: 
 There was first an early collection of six miktam psalms (the word 
 being explained after the rabbinic etymology as "golden" or 
 "choice" psalms) made in the early Persian period. There was 
 also a collection of thirteen maskil psalms (explained as "medita- 
 tive poems") made in the late Persian period. About the same 
 time (late Persian) the Davidic collection of psalms was formed, 
 originally sixty-eight in number, although in the present Psalter 
 we have seventy-four. This was the first of the minor psalters, 
 andinto it were inserted all the miktam psalms and six of the mas- 
 kilim. Next in order came the two originally independent col- 
 lections of the Korah and Asaph psalms (late Persian or early 
 Greek period). The Asaph collection adopted two of the mas- 
 kilim not appropriated by the Davidic collection, and the Korah 
 psalter adopted four others. The next stage in the evolution 
 was the collection (early Greek period) of fifty-seven mizmorim 
 (the technical word for "psalms"), which was a selection from the 
 existing collections of certain of the Davidic, Asaph, and Korah 
 psalms with the addition of a few others. This was apparently 
 followed by the elohistic psalter (Pss. 42-83), a group of psalms 
 in which the name Elohim is regularly used for God, although in 
 their original form many of these psalms used Jahveh (middle 
 
72 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW 
 
 Greek period). It is inferred from the use of the divine name 
 Elohim that this psalter was composed in Babylonia (a very pre- 
 carious inference). The elohistic psalter also was made up of se- 
 lections from David, Korah, and the mizmorim, and included all 
 of Asaph. About the same time there came into existence in Pal- 
 estine another psalter, containing fifty-five psalms, and known as 
 the "director's psalter," this being Briggs's interpretation of the 
 phrase which the English Bible renders "for the chief musician." 
 Then arose the groups of hallels and pilgrim psalms, which were 
 mainly compiled in the Greek period. In the Maccabean period 
 the Psalter received its final shape, being divided into the five 
 books which we find at present. 
 
 Both from the method and the results of this section of the 
 introduction a thorough-going dissent must be recorded. In 
 the first place, it seems to the present reviewer that the subject 
 is approached from the wrong angle. The treatment is dominated 
 by the chronological point of view, and an attempt is made to 
 indicate the gradual growth of the Psalter out of preceding minor 
 collections. This is all very well, but first of all it should be 
 proved that such preceding minor collections existed. This is 
 not done: we have merely the statement, "This is the way the 
 Psalter grew," and the reader is left to guess which of the multi- 
 tudinous facts presented in the course of the discussion would 
 have been used to support the theory, if the author had chosen 
 to state his argument. The complaint is not that the facts, or 
 at least the more important ones, in support of a critical decom- 
 position of the Psalter are not given, but rather that because of 
 the chronological arrangement of the material facts which natu- 
 rally go together and throw light upon each other and upon the 
 critical structure of the Psalter, are violently separated and thus 
 lose a large part of their evidential force. 
 
 In order to illustrate the confusion which arises from the chrono- 
 logical arrangement of the material, it may be well briefly to 
 indicate the evidence commonly employed in the critical analysis 
 of the Psalter, and then to show how this material is utilized by 
 Dr. Briggs. 
 
 Criticism has usually started, and with obvious propriety, 
 from the division of the Psalter into five books, a division plainly 
 
THE PSALMS 73 
 
 indicated by the doxologies that stand at the end of the first 
 four books. The doxologies, therefore, give us our first clue. 
 On nearer inspection this fivefold division is seen to have been 
 superimposed upon a more fundamental threefold division, the 
 key to which is the alternation in the use of the divine names. 
 Book I is a homogeneous collection of Davidic psalms, in which 
 Jahveh is regularly used; in Books II-III, Elohim is regularly 
 used; in Books IV-V, Jahveh is again used. Thus the elohistic 
 redaction of the middle books of the Psalter furnishes our second 
 important clue to the analysis. It will be observed that the 
 doxology at the end of Book I coincides with a critical line of 
 cleavage. If we turn to Books II-III, in which the elohistic 
 psalms are found, four very distinct groups emerge: (a) a Korah 
 Elohim-group (Pss. 42-49); (b) a Davidic Elohim-group (Pss. 
 51-72); (c) an Asaph Elohim-group (Pss. 73-83); (d) a Korah 
 Jahveh-group (Pss. 84-89). 32 
 
 The first thing that strikes the attention in this analysis is that 
 the elohistic redaction does not quite coincide with the division 
 into books. We should expect the dividing line, marked by the 
 doxology, to fall at the end of the elohistic psalms (that is, after 
 Ps. 83), and that Psalms 84-89, which are Jahveh psalms, would 
 be combined with the Jahveh psalms of Books IV-V. On the 
 other hand, this little group is principally a Korah group with 
 close affinities to the elohistic Korah-group. The suggestion has 
 been made that Psalms 84-89 are an appendix to the elohistic 
 psalter. If so, the doxology at the end of Book III (Ps. 89 52) 
 is again seen to have critical significance. Further, it would 
 seem proper to postulate a somewhat different literary history 
 for the two groups of Korah psalms. Otherwise, it is difficult 
 to see why they did not all suffer an elohistic redaction. 
 
 In the second place, the elohistic redaction is unexpectedly 
 broken in two by the division between Books II and III, again 
 marked by the doxology, Ps. 72 18 f., and also by the remarkable 
 editorial note, Ps. 72 20. Because of this division the Korah 
 and Davidic Elohim-psalms are classed together and, with one 
 Asaph psalm (Ps. 50), are separated from the group of Asaph 
 
 32 Psalm 50 is an isolated Asaph psalm inserted between the Korah and Da- 
 vidic psalms. The significance of its position is discussed below. 
 
74 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW 
 
 Elohim-psalms. The anomalous position of Ps. 72 20 has always 
 been recognized; but the very peculiarity of its position gives it 
 an unusual critical significance. It points to the necessity of a 
 critical analysis both of what precedes and of what follows. It 
 proves that the Davidic group (Pss. 51-72) must have once existed 
 apart from the Korah group (Pss. 42-49), for this note is only 
 appropriate at the end of a homogeneous Davidic collection. 
 And we may go a step further with considerable probability. 
 The Korah group (Pss. 42-49) and the Asaph group (Pss. 73-83) 
 are the psalms of the two great levitical singing-guilds. They 
 would naturally, therefore, be grouped together. The fact that 
 this is not the case, but that the Korah group is illogically combined 
 with the Davidic group to form Book II, strongly suggests that 
 a collection of Korah and Davidic psalms was made before these 
 were combined with the Asaph psalms to make up the Elohim 
 psalter. Probably, then, the homogeneous group of Asaph 
 psalms also had at one time an independent existence. It thus 
 appears that the collections of the Davidic, the Korah, and the 
 Asaph elohistic psalms all had once an independent existence; 
 that the Davidic and Korah psalms were then grouped together 
 in our present Book II; and, finally, that these two groups were 
 combined with the Asaph psalms into the present Elohim psalter 
 (Pss. 42-83). 
 
 But the editorial note, Ps. 72 20, enables us to draw still another 
 inference. The writer of this note could not have known of any 
 of the Davidic psalms that follow it in the present Psalter. Con- 
 sequently, the scattered Davidic psalms in Books III and IV and 
 the groups of Davidic psalms in Book V probably had a different 
 literary history from the homogeneous Davidic Elohim-psalms of 
 Book II. On the other hand, the relationship of the Davidic 
 Elohim-group of Book II to the Davidic Jahveh-group of Book I 
 is an unsettled question. Did these two groups originally form 
 one collection, of which Ps. 72 20 was the conclusion, or are they 
 independent parallel collections? To the present reviewer the 
 latter view has always seemed more probable on general prin- 
 ciples; but the relationship between the two Davidic psalters 
 is further complicated by the fact that Psalm 16 is found, as 
 Psalm 53, in an elohistic redaction — a positive proof that in the 
 elohistic psalms we are dealing with a distinct psalter. 
 
THE PSALMS 75 
 
 It will be seen from the above that the doxologies at the end 
 of Books I, II, and III indicate correct critical divisions of the 
 Psalter. The case is different with Ps. 106 48, the final doxology 
 of Book IV. It is admitted on all hands that this division is 
 critically unsound. Psalms 105-107 form a very closely connected 
 group of psalms. Their separation by the doxology into different 
 books is unfortunate, and the division evidently artificial. Books 
 IV-V are therefore generally regarded as in reality making up 
 one collection. Within it, however, the pilgrim psalms (Pss. 
 120-134) stand out very distinctly and can most probably be 
 regarded as forming a minor psalter. 
 
 In the above analysis, which sums up in general outline the 
 evidence for a critical structure of the Psalter as it has been de- 
 veloped in the last twenty-five years, the following collections 
 emerge with distinctness: (1) a Davidic collection constituting 
 Book I; (2) the Davidic collection of Book II (probably originally 
 distinct from the collection of Book I) ; (3) the Korah and Asaph 
 collections of Books II and III; (4) the elohistic psalter, which 
 represents a combination of the second collection of Davidic 
 psalms with the Korah and Asaph psalms, together with a Korah 
 appendix; (5) a great collection of miscellaneous psalms (Books 
 IV-V) ; within which (6) the pilgrim psalms stand out as a homo- 
 geneous collection, also no doubt originally a minor psalter. 
 
 Let us now turn to some illustrations of the way in which 
 Briggs makes use of this material. In the first place, the dis- 
 cussion of the doxologies, which we have seen to be the natural 
 starting-point of the investigation, is deferred to the end of the 
 analysis. This is due to the chronological arrangement of the 
 material. Briggs believes that the doxologies were inserted by 
 the final editor of the Psalter. Hence they are discussed last. 
 Even granting that they are due to the final editor (though this 
 is very much to be doubted in the case of the first three), they 
 have been shown to mark lines of critical cleavage. Hence, if 
 the object is to show how the Psalter should be analyzed into 
 earlier minor psalters, the postponement of all mention of the 
 doxologies to the end of the discussion is most unfortunate; it 
 prevents any use of this first clue to the analysis. 
 
 In the next place, the treatment of the elohistic psalter stands 
 
76 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW 
 
 midway in the discussion, after the reader has already had 
 to accept largely on faith the miktam, maskil, Davidic, Korah, 
 Asaph, and mizmorim psalters. The discussion of the elohistic 
 psalter (§ 32) is entirely separated from the discussion of the 
 threefold division of the Psalter (§ 38), with which it would nat- 
 urally be connected, because the compilation of the elohistic 
 psalter preceded in point of time the present threefold arrange- 
 ment. 33 
 
 Again, the critical use made of Ps. 72 20 must be regarded as 
 wholly inadequate. It is used only to confirm the supposition 
 of a Davidic psalter (§ 27). It is not used to disintegrate the 
 elohistic psalter into its original elements. One might as well 
 pass a current of electricity through water and say that the result 
 was two parts of hydrogen, with the oxygen totally ignored. 
 The domination of the chronological point of view would again 
 seem to be responsible for this failure to make full use of 
 Ps. 72 20. Each of the groups — Davidic, Korah, and Asaph — 
 is treated by itself in the supposed chronological order of their 
 origin and without reference to the other groups. As Ps. 72 20 
 is attached to the Davidic group, it is mentioned only in connec- 
 tion with that group, and the indirect bearing which its position 
 gives it upon the separation of the Korah and Asaph groups is not 
 mentioned. Thus the doxologies, the peculiarity of the elohistic 
 psalter, and Ps. 72 20, which, taken together, are the clues to the 
 critical analysis of the Psalter, lose almost all their evidential 
 force through the chronological disposition of the material adopted 
 by Briggs. 
 
 But what, then, it may be asked, is the evidence which Briggs 
 adduces in favor of the existence of minor psalters previous to 
 
 33 The threefold division of course implies the artificiality of the doxology 
 at the end of Book IV (Ps. 106 48). But in discussing the threefold division, 
 nothing is said as to this implication. The artificiality of the doxology as the 
 closing doxology of Book IV is, indeed, implied at § 35, where the attempt is made 
 to show that there was a hallel psalter, and at § 40, where the connection of Ps. 
 106 48 with 1 Chron. 16 36 is discussed. But the bearing of Briggs's view of this 
 doxology upon the book divisions is not brought out where we should expect it to 
 be. Briggs further holds that this doxology was arbitrarily inserted by the final 
 editor. This is by no means so probable as the view that the doxology originally 
 belonged to the psalm, and that the unfortunate division into books was made at 
 this point because the doxology already stood here. 
 
THE PSALMS 77 
 
 our present Psalter? Strictly speaking, none whatever. Let 
 me not be misunderstood. I do not mean to convey the im- 
 pression that no facts which might have been used as evidence 
 are mentioned. I only mean that their evidential value is not 
 pointed out. The nearest approach to an argument for a minor 
 psalter is found in § 27, which treats of the Davidic psalter. 
 Briggs starts from the phrase in the title of these psalms le-david, 
 ambiguously translated in the Revised Version, "Of David." 
 Until comparatively recent times it has been commonly held 
 that the preposition le denoted authorship, and was to be trans- 
 lated "by." Briggs departs from this traditional view, saying: 
 
 The le is not the le of authorship, as has generally been supposed. 
 The earliest collection of Pss. for use in the synagogue was made 
 under the name of David, the traditional father of religious poetry 
 and of the temple worship. The later editors left this name in the 
 titles, with the preposition le attached, to indicate that these Psalms 
 belonged to that collection. This explains all the facts of the case 
 and the position of these Pss. in the Psalter. This view is con- 
 firmed by Ps. 72 20, which states that this Ps. was the conclusion 
 of the prayers of David, and implies that the collection was a prayer- 
 book. 
 
 The argument of this paragraph would seem to be that the prep- 
 osition le implied a Davidic psalter, and that this is confirmed 
 by Ps. 72 20. But this begs the whole question. The correctness 
 of the interpretation of the le is assumed, not proved. Briggs 's 
 view of its meaning is a favorite one at the present time, and may 
 be correct, but it is distinctly debatable, and has a number of 
 weighty arguments against it. One of the objections to the as- 
 sumed interpretation of le is found in the very passage cited in 
 its support, Ps. 72 20. The editor who appended this note must 
 certainly have thought that David was the author of the preceding 
 psalms. But if so, the title le-david must already have stood 
 at the head either of each psalm or of the collection, and must 
 have been understood to imply authorship. As this editorial 
 note would seem to be regarded by Briggs (and quite correctly) as 
 appended to the original Davidic collection, it indicates that the 
 theory of the meaning of le which he rejects existed as early as the 
 first stages in the evolution of the Psalter. Since Briggs 's inter- 
 pretation of the le plays so large a part in his theory of the Psalter, 
 
78 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW 
 
 surely it ought to have been exegetically and linguistically justi- 
 fied, and not simply assumed. 34 
 
 Whether the phrase lamenasseh usually translated, "For 
 the chief musician," indicates a director's psalter, is again a de- 
 batable question. The statement is simply made that the le 
 has the same meaning in this phrase which Briggs assigns to it 
 in the phrase le-david. But whether the le in these psalm- 
 titles always has the same significance is just the problem which 
 requires discussion. When, for example, in the title to Ps. 
 51 we find both phrases, lamenasseh, le-david, the question 
 presses as to whether we have a right to interpret le both times 
 in the same way. What we want is proof, not assumption. 
 Yet it is not impossible that there really may have been a di- 
 rector's psalter, and this theory was also advocated by Beer. 
 One piece of evidence for it is found in the fact that the obscure 
 musical or liturgical directions are only found in these director- 
 psalms, though they by no means occur in all of them. Briggs 
 notices this fact, but as usual fails to point out its evidential 
 force. So far as the miktam, maskil, mizmor, and hallel 
 psalms are concerned, where the preposition le does not appear, 
 no attempt whatever is made to prove that they once formed 
 independent collections. It is simply asserted that they did so. 
 There is a possibility that the hallel psalms which appear in cer- 
 tain groups in Book V may have formed a psalter, but the contrast 
 
 34 When it is said in the above citation that the meaning of the le adopted 
 "explains all the facts of the case and the position of these Pss. in the Psalter," 
 we have an instance of one of those sovereign dicta which are altogether too fre- 
 quent in this commentary, and whose effect is irritating rather than reassuring. 
 In this connection it may be noted that from the theory that the le does not imply 
 authorship the conclusion is reached that all the psalms are anonymous except 
 Psalms 72, 88, 89, 90, and (strangely enough) 102. These are all held to be pseu- 
 donymous. Even in the thirteen cases where historical notices are attached to 
 the title le-david, it is denied that the editor understood the le of authorship, 
 on the ground that "it is altogether improbable . . . that an editor of the middle 
 Persian period could have thought that his references to experiences of David were 
 historical." Briggs's theory is that by means of these historical notices the editor 
 simply wished to illustrate the psalms, and not to express an opinion as to their 
 author, a theory already tentatively suggested by Beer (Individual- und Gemeinde- 
 Psalmen, p. lxxxviii), but which is distinctly improbable in view of the strong 
 Davidic tradition which is known to have existed at the time when most of the 
 psalms were composed (cf. the Chronicler). 
 
THE PSALMS 79 
 
 with the very clearly defined pilgrim songs in the same book 
 rather suggests the opposite view. The miktam psalms also 
 form a little group (Pss. 16, 56-60) ; but there is no critical reason, 
 apart from the fact that they stand together, for holding that they 
 formed an independent collection. The maskilim are, to be 
 sure, mainly concentrated in Books II-III (eleven out of the thir- 
 teen maskilim are found in these two books), but they are scat- 
 tered through these books in a haphazard manner, while the 
 mizmorim are shuffled through all the five books in a way that 
 is now wholly unintelligible. There are no critical indications of 
 psalters in the case of these psalms, which are not even clearly 
 grouped, and the question presses whether in these cases Briggs 
 is not following phantom psalters. 
 
 At this point we meet with another of Briggs's assumptions. 
 The objection just raised, drawn from the unmethodical distri- 
 bution of the psalms in the psalters, is met by the assumption 
 that all the psalms which had a common element in their titles 
 once stood together, and that their present distribution through 
 the Psalter is due to various revisions. So far as I have been 
 able to observe, no evidence for this view is offered, and the unor- 
 ganized character of the maskilim, mizmorim, and even the hallel 
 psalms, where there are no critical evidences for the existence of 
 independent psalters, as contrasted with the Davidic, Asaph, and 
 Korah psalms, where there are such evidences, makes strongly 
 against the theory. When the same theory is applied to the 
 Korah and Davidic psalms, it is equally gratuitous. Briggs 
 assumes that the elohistic Korah-psalms and the Jahvistic Korah- 
 psalms once stood together, but that the present position of the 
 Jahvistic Korah-group (Pss. 84-89) was due to the final redactor. 
 Why all the Korah psalms were not adopted into the elohistic 
 psalter, if they once stood together, he does not tell us. 35 In 
 the same way, he assumes that the Davidic Jahveh group of 
 Book I and the Davidic Elohim group of Book II once stood 
 together, though it is again difficult to see why only a part of the 
 Davidic psalms were selected from the original psalter for elo- 
 
 35 We have seen that the greater probability is that the two groups of psalms 
 had a different literary history, and that the Jahveh group was an appendix to 
 the Elohim psalter, not an insertion by the final editor. 
 
80 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW 
 
 histic redaction. 36 He further assumes that the Davidic psalms 
 of Books III-IV also stood in the same general collection, and 
 therefore transfers them in imagination to a place before the 
 editorial note, Ps. 72 20. This procedure would of course over- 
 turn the argument advanced above from this note, that the 
 Davidic psalms in the later books were unknown to the editor 
 who was responsible for Ps. 72 20; but at the same time it calmly 
 ignores what has usually been held to be one of the best clews to 
 a true analysis of the Psalter. As a matter of fact, as we shall 
 see, Briggs himself distinguishes certain Davidic psalms in Book V 
 from the other Davidic psalms in the later books, and denies that 
 they stood in the original Davidic psalter. 37 
 
 If a true presentation of Briggs's method of discussion has been 
 given thus far, it is clear that the student who wishes to find any 
 formal justification of the critical analysis advocated in the com- 
 mentary will be disappointed. Briefly stated, the argument can 
 be reduced to the following: In the titles to a number of psalms 
 the name of David occurs. Therefore there was a Davidic psalter. 
 In another series of psalms mizmor is found in the title. There- 
 fore there was a mizmor collection. Sometimes both the name 
 of David and mizmor occur in the same title; in such cases the 
 editor of the mizmor psalter took over the psalm from the Davidic 
 psalter. If, in addition to le-david and mizmor the phrase 
 
 36 The fact that Psalm 16 appears, as Psalm 53, in an elohistic redaction, and 
 the bearing of this upon the right to assume an independent elohistic psalter, 
 is not even referred to in the chapter on Higher Criticism, though it is noted in 
 the chapter on the Text. This omission shows how oblivious our author is of the 
 necessity of first proving the existence of independent minor psalters in the 
 present compilation. 
 
 37 Much labor is given to the establishment of the supposed original order of 
 the Davidic Psalms (p. lxiv), but the results are far from convincing, and do not 
 seem to throw any light either upon the critical analysis of the Psalter or upon 
 the interpretation of the psalms. It may also be noted that Psalm 50 is supposed 
 to have originally stood with the other Asaph psalms (Psalms 73-83). This is 
 possible; its present position is at first sight anomalous. It is variously explained 
 by our author as due to the desire of an editor " to make an appropriate concluding 
 Ps. to the first division of 50" (p. lxvi), and as "giving an appropriate liturgical 
 close [in what respect is Psalm 50 liturgical?] to this [Korah] group before the peni- 
 tential Psalm 51" (p. lxxii). The propriety of the word "appropriate" in these 
 citations may be questioned. The real reason for the present position of the 
 psalm would seem to be its topical connection with the present form of Psalm 51. 
 Both psalms are anti-sacrificial. 
 
THE PSALMS 81 
 
 lamenasseh is found, this means that the psalm was first in 
 the Davidic, then in the mizmor, and finally in the director's 
 psalter (cf. Psalm 62), and so on indefinitely. All this is stated 
 as if it were self-evident; no proof is given for the theory advocated. 
 The discussion is so formulated as to show, not that there were 
 original minor psalters behind our present Psalter, but, such 
 psalters being assumed, their chronological relationships are 
 stated, and thus is indicated the growth of the present Psalter 
 from its first beginnings to its final form. 
 
 The criticism thus far made has been upon this chronological 
 method of approach. This method does not allow the evidence 
 for the existence of previous psalters to be marshalled in any 
 adequate way. But has not our criticism after all been some- 
 what captious? Is it fair to judge a writer by what he does 
 not set out to do, rather than by what he actually undertakes? 
 Briggs sets out to show what he believes to be the chronological 
 stages of the growth of the Psalter. This he does very clearly. 
 The reader can easily follow the orderly sequence, miktamim, 
 maskilim, David, Korah, Asaph, mizinorim, and the rest. 
 May not the advantages of this method of presenting the subject, 
 by which the student is enabled to grasp without difficulty the 
 theory propounded, compensate for the disadvantages which have 
 been noted? 
 
 But even if we thus consider this chronological mode of treat- 
 ment simply on its positive side, and judge it by what it does 
 do and not by what it fails to do, we immediately encounter 
 a grave difficulty. Turn again to the title of Psalm 62. The 
 three elements in this title are chief-musician, mizmor, David, 
 arranged in this order. On Briggs's theory of the titles these 
 represent three minor psalters. But this order is not the 
 chronological order of the psalters. Briggs adopts the order 
 David, mizmor, director. What are the principles upon which 
 he bases his view of the chronological relationship of the various 
 psalters? 
 
 It is noteworthy that only once in Briggs's entire discussion 
 does he make use of any external evidence. In discussing, namely, 
 the date of the director's psalter, he refers to the fact that the 
 term lamenasseh is found again in Habakkuk 3 19. This, 
 
82 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW 
 
 he says, was taken from the director's psalter, though he gives 
 no proof of this statement. Hence Habakkuk 3 is subsequent to 
 the director. But since the prophetic canon was closed by the 
 time of Ben Sira (219-198 B.C.), therefore the director's psalter 
 also must have been composed before this time, that is, in the 
 middle Greek period. 
 
 This almost total neglect of the external evidence in determining 
 the date of the Psalter is in the present reviewer's estimation 
 a very serious omission. 38 The formula for the use of internal 
 evidences of date is a simple one: the date of the latest psalm 
 in an assumed collection is the terminus ad quern of the com- 
 pilation of that collection. 
 
 But at this point a new difficulty emerges. The Davidic psalter 
 is held to have been closed in the late Persian period, because on 
 grounds of internal evidence no Davidic psalms were composed 
 later than this period. But there are psalms with le-david in 
 their titles which are assigned by Briggs himself, again on the 
 basis of internal evidence, to the Greek period. How is this 
 contradiction avoided? By supposing that the Davidic titles 
 in the Greek psalms are not genuine old titles. Attention is also 
 called in this connection to the tendency present in later times, 
 as is evidenced by the versions, to ascribe psalms to David. Now 
 if evidence independent of the internal criteria of the psalms 
 themselves had been advanced for the completion of the Davidic 
 psalter in the Persian period, it would perhaps be legitimate to 
 exclude psalms of the Greek period from the original Davidic 
 psalter of the Persian period. But if the dates of the minor 
 psalters are regularly determined by the dates of the latest psalms 
 in them, it seems distinctly fallacious, to put it very mildly, to 
 assign the Davidic psalter to the Persian period in spite of the fact 
 that some psalms with Davidic titles admittedly date from the 
 Greek period. 
 
 The entire theory of the evolution of the Psalter as elaborated 
 
 38 It is not treated even in the section on Canonicity, where the omission of 
 any reference to external evidence is even more striking. The whole section on 
 Canonicity is, it may be remarked, rather elementary, and is mainly taken up 
 with a defence of the imprecatory psalms. The discussion seems to move upon 
 the old assumption that the canonicity of a Biblical book can be vindicated by 
 means of its religious, doctrinal, and ethical contents. 
 
THE PSALMS 83 
 
 in the introduction thus turns out to be built exclusively upon the 
 criticism of the individual psalms which compose the several 
 subsidiary collections. But, unfortunately, the discussion of the 
 dates of the psalms is rigorously excluded from the introduction. 
 Only the tabular results of the conclusions reached in the body 
 of the commentary are presented. It is a pity that the reader 
 could not have been apprised at the outset of some of the general 
 landmarks by which the attempt is made to date the psalms in 
 the ensuing detailed discussions. If only a few words could have 
 been said, for example, on the relation of the Psalter to the Law 
 or to Second Isaiah or to Job, to the development of Individualism 
 or ethical monotheism, if it could have been shown toward which 
 of the two poles, to the JE narratives of Genesis or to Chronicles, 
 the Psalter inclines, the student could have formed some idea 
 of what to expect in the following pages. As it is, he must plunge 
 unprepared into the swollen stream of detailed criticism that 
 flows through the nine hundred and sixty-seven pages of the com- 
 mentary proper. It must be said that the very important section 
 on the Higher Criticism of the Psalter is thoroughly unsatisfac- 
 tory. The method of presentation adopted results in a complete 
 disorganization of the proofs of the evolution of the Psalter in 
 the interest of a formally clear presentation of the assumed chro- 
 nological stages of evolution. But when the chronological theory 
 thus propounded is examined, it is found to be based on a me- 
 chanical principle, which the author himself does not always ad- 
 here to, and for proof of which the reader is referred to the body 
 of the commentary. The process is nothing short of bewilder- 
 ing to one who is not already acquainted with the criticism of 
 the Psalter, while to one who is acquainted with this the result 
 carries no conviction. 
 
 With regard to Briggs's actual theory of the dates of the psalms, 
 only the results of his investigation and one or two tests of his 
 method can be here given. 
 
 Briggs assigns seven psalms to the early monarchy before 
 Jehoshaphat, seven to the middle monarchy, thirteen to the late 
 monarchy (altogether twenty-seven pre-exilic psalms, a goodly 
 proportion as modern critics go), thirteen to the exile, thirty- 
 three to the early Persian period, sixteen to the times of Nehe- 
 
84 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW 
 
 miah, eleven to the late Persian period, fourteen to the early 
 Greek period, forty-one to the later Greek period, and eight to 
 the period of the Maccabees. These results seem precise. But 
 for that very reason they awaken suspicion; can the psalms be 
 so accurately distributed over all these centuries of development? 
 This suspicion is strengthened when one observes that the miktam 
 psalms (Pss. 16, 56-60) are distributed over several centuries. 
 If any group of psalms bear on their face the marks of homo- 
 geneity, it is these. Duhm assigns Psalms 56-59 tentatively to 
 one author, certainly to the same period. 
 
 The attitude which a commentator assumes toward the ques- 
 tion of Maccabean and pre-exilic psalms is one of the surest touch- 
 stones of his critical ability. On the one hand, the fact that 
 only eight Maccabean psalms (Pss. 33, 102b, 109b, 118, 139c, 
 147, 149, 129) are accepted represents a wholesome and timely 
 reaction against Duhm and his followers, who would bring the 
 larger part of the Psalter down to the Maccabean period, and 
 much of it to the latter part of the period. On the other hand, 
 the assignment of twenty-seven psalms to the pre-exilic period, 
 and seven of these (Pss. 7, 13, 18, 23, 24b, 60a, and 110) to the 
 very early monarchy, is most precarious. A few illustrations of 
 the method of dating these earlier psalms will show what weight 
 is to be attached to some, at least, of Briggs's conclusions. On 
 Psalm 7, which the conservative Baethgen assigns to the Persian 
 period and Duhm to a very late period, Briggs observes that there 
 is nothing to prevent its being as early as David. In this par- 
 ticular case his judgment seems to be somewhat influenced by 
 the title, though in general he rejects the titles as authoritative. 
 Regarding Psalm 13, which Baethgen and Duhm make no at- 
 tempt to date exactly but which is closely related to the other 
 psalms of persecution or martyrdom in Book I, it is stated that 
 there is no internal evidence against a date as early as David, 
 and the claim is actually made that "the author of 2 Sam. 1 
 19-27 might have written it." The attempt to fix the date of 
 Psalm 23 must be regarded as a peculiarly striking instance of 
 ineffective argument. "The language and syntax of the Ps.," 
 says Dr. Briggs, "and all its ideals are early. There is not the 
 slightest trace of anything that is post-deuteronomic. The his- 
 
THE PSALMS 85 
 
 torical circumstances of the poet must have been peaceful and 
 prosperous." On the basis of this characterization of the psalm, 
 the possibility of its composition in the prosperous Greek or late 
 Persian periods is denied. The exile and early restoration are 
 ruled out because they are times of sorrow and because the singer 
 is able to resort to the temple. 39 The reference to the temple 
 also rules out David, and properly so. The troubled times of 
 the Assyrian and Babylonian periods are dismissed for the same 
 reason as the exile. Hence the psalm is assigned to "an earlier 
 and simpler period, the days of the early monarchy, not earlier 
 than Solomon, or later than Jehoshaphat." So far as the lan- 
 guage of the psalm is concerned, this does not prevent Baethgen 
 from assigning it to the post-exilic period or Duhm from regard- 
 ing it as Maccabean. Apart from the argument from language, 
 is it really to be supposed that no pious Israelite or Jew could 
 have spoken with the quiet confidence of this psalm except in 
 the period between Solomon and Jehoshaphat? As to its ideals, 
 Briggs expressly admits that "the three figures, shepherd, guide, 
 host, are all simple, natural, and characteristic of the life in 
 Jerusalem and its vicinity at any period in Biblical history." 
 As a matter of fact the figure of the shepherd is especially promi- 
 nent in Second Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, and might suggest 
 that the psalm was subsequent to these writers. That a psalm 
 of only six verses should be dated before Deuteronomy because 
 it lacks any post-deuteronomic characteristics, is surely a most 
 fragile argument from silence. In fact Psalm 23 cannot be 
 dated by itself alone. The only safe method of procedure is to 
 attempt to fix the approximate date of the group of psalms with 
 which it is most naturally associated. 40 These illustrations do not 
 awaken much confidence in the principles of historical criticism 
 underlying them, and doubt becomes despair when we find Psalm 
 110 tentatively brought into connection with the victory of Je- 
 hoshaphat recounted in 2 Chron. 20. Moreover, many of 
 Briggs's results are only obtained by the assumption of more or 
 
 39 The reading of the LXX at vs. 6b is adopted, cf. R. V. 
 
 40 Psalm 23 is very closely related to Psalm 27, so closely in fact that it is 
 not impossible that they had a common author (cf. Duhm). But Briggs ascribes 
 Psalm 27 to the middle monarchy. 
 
86 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW 
 
 less extensive glosses or accretions. 41 Psalms which in their pres- 
 ent form are shown either by language or by religious and other 
 ideas to be late, may be dated earlier if these modernisms can be 
 eliminated as glosses. The assumption of the possibility of 
 glosses is theoretically entirely legitimate. Hymns are notori- 
 ously tinkered with, and it can be demonstrated in the case of 
 the duplicate psalms that the hymns of the Psalter are no excep- 
 tion. The question is whether the glosses and accretions can be 
 successfully detected. It is at this point that we touch Briggs's 
 metrical analyses of the psalms. It is poetical considerations, 
 metre and strophical arrangement, that are most often used as 
 clues to the detection of glosses. It will therefore be necessary 
 to turn our attention for a few moments to the next great prob- 
 lem which confronts us in the Psalter, the problem of Hebrew 
 poetry. 
 
 Hebrew metrics forms one of the most technical and most 
 vexed questions in Old Testament study. Briggs has been for a 
 generation a valiant champion of the existence of Hebrew metre, 
 and has contributed perhaps more than any other American 
 scholar to the advancement of this particular subject. It has 
 been more and more recognized that in Hebrew poetry we 
 have on a priori grounds every right to expect some sort of a 
 metrical system. The difficulty has been to determine what 
 are the exact principles of that system. Briggs long ago adopted 
 the principles of the German scholar, Julius Ley, in which the 
 accents or tone-syllables are laid at the foundation of Hebrew 
 metre, and he has lived to see these principles, which were at 
 first regarded with great skepticism, adopted by a steadily in- 
 creasing number of scholars. Yet there is a weakness in the 
 so-called accentual system of Ley and Briggs. If accents or tones 
 alone are counted, we do not get any real metre. This defect 
 was pointed out by Sievers, who insisted that the falls and pauses, 
 as well as the accents or rises, must be counted in. Ley himself, 
 in articles published since his death in 1901, seems finally to have 
 
 41 So, in the case of Psalm 110 just cited, and most notably in the case of 
 Psalm 18. The two other parts of psalms assigned to the early monarchy, Ps. 
 24 7 ff. and 60 6 ff. have perhaps a more defensible claim to antiquity than those 
 which have been noticed. 
 
THE PSALMS 87 
 
 recognized this defect, but Briggs seems to be still skeptical of 
 the value of Sievers's supplement to Ley's system (p. xli). 
 
 Our author does not go into the technicalities of this subject 
 beyond giving a few general rules for counting the tones. 42 He 
 holds that there are four measures in the Psalms: trimeters or 
 three-toned lines (these being the most frequent), tetrameters, 
 pentameters (a measure particularly investigated by Budde, and 
 with great success), and hexameters. The existence of two- 
 toned lines is denied (against Duhm). All the psalms are 
 stretched or contracted to fit these measures. 
 
 Briggs also holds to a strophical arrangement of most of the 
 psalms. The strophes are primarily determined "by a more 
 decided separation in the thought of the poem," and by noting 
 the relationships of the several poetical parallelisms. In other 
 words, while the metre of the different lines is closely connected 
 with textual criticism, the determination of the strophe is in- 
 timately allied with exegesis. 
 
 The present reviewer cannot claim to be an expert in the de- 
 partment of Hebrew metres; his judgments are those of a layman. 
 But his impressions are that a very large amount of truth must 
 be admitted in Briggs's metrical system. Many of the psalms 
 lend themselves with but little emendation to a consistent met- 
 rical scheme. In many the emendations which are supported, 
 independently of the metre, by purely text-critical or exegetical 
 considerations enable the student to recover the strophical 
 analysis, and therewith restore the original beauty and meaning 
 of the psalm. In such cases the result justifies the process. In 
 seeing the psalm assume shape and color the student finds the 
 same pleasure which a critic of paintings might take in watching 
 the gradual restoration of an old masterpiece of which the lines 
 and colors had become confused and dulled by the grime of ages. 
 The exegetical and aesthetic value of such successful restorations 
 can scarcely be overestimated. But there are a large number of 
 instances in which it does not seem as if the accentual system 
 
 42 For instance, monosyllabic words are not usually to be accented. Words 
 of four or more syllables have a secondary accent, which is counted in the measure. 
 The insertion of the conjunction ve before a monosyllable will justify giving to 
 the latter the force of a tone. 
 
88 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW 
 
 or any other had as yet solved the metrical problem, and in which 
 the strophical arrangement is correspondingly obscure. The 
 hammering and sawing of the lines which at times Briggs finds 
 necessary in order to bring his metres into accord, makes such a 
 tremendous din that the music of the reconstructed psalm is 
 fairly drowned out. 43 
 
 What Smend says in reference to the interpretation of the 
 psalms generally has a particular application to their metrical 
 reconstruction and strophical analysis: "Every expert knows 
 that many a psalm is like a fortress which defies a regular siege 
 and can only be conquered by a lucky chance." In the present 
 uncertainty in the field of Hebrew metre successful restorations 
 or emendations depend more on deftness of exegesis, soundness 
 of judgment in textual criticism, and poetic divination than on 
 the system of metre adopted. In the two illustrations which I 
 shall give of Briggs's poetical analyses, the criticisms will be 
 made from the exegetical point of view. In the one case his 
 siege-works seem to me to have utterly failed to reduce the for- 
 tress. In the other he has captured it with brilliant success. 
 
 Psalm 18 has always been a touchstone of the commentator's 
 principles of historical criticism and of his exegetical tact. Upon 
 it all those fall back who wish to defend the Davidic authorship 
 of any of the psalms. At the present time no scholar who has 
 been at all influenced by historical criticism will undertake to 
 defend the psalm as it stands. Those who defend its Davidic 
 authorship can only do so at the expense of its integrity. This 
 is the course adopted by Briggs. The psalm is Davidic, but 
 only after all that in his judgment is non-davidic has been elimi- 
 nated. The question is whether these eliminations can be exe- 
 getically and text-critically justified. By the battering-rams of 
 metre and strophe Briggs proposes to break through the outer 
 bastions and get back to the old Davidic wall. 
 
 The metre of the psalm is the trimeter, and forms one of the 
 most obvious examples of this measure to be found anywhere. 
 It is in general so clear and consistent that departures from it 
 
 43 As an example, note the carpentry- work that must be done on the mikiam 
 psalms. Psalm 59 has practically to be rewritten in order to bring it into a metrical 
 scheme. Whether the result is poetry is another question. 
 
THE PSALMS 89 
 
 at once arouse suspicion. In the majority of the emendations 
 necessary to preserve the metre, considerations of textual criti- 
 cism and exegesis enable us to cut out intruding elements with 
 considerable assurance. 44 But these metrical emendations have 
 little direct bearing upon Briggs's reconstruction of the psalm, 
 except as they affect the structure of the strophes. It is the 
 strophical analysis which is made the basis of Briggs's critical 
 process. 
 
 We have seen that the strophical analysis depends primarily 
 upon the understanding of the course of thought in the poem. 
 In Psalm 18 there are two very clearly marked divisions: Part I, 
 vss. 1-26, and Part II, vss. 32-50. Part I describes the deliver- 
 ance of the singer from some great danger; the description is 
 highly figurative and the precise nature of the danger is not 
 revealed. Part II treats of the equipment for war of the singer 
 by his God and his complete triumph over his enemies; the 
 theme of Part II recalls Homer. Between these two sharply dis- 
 tinguished parts stands the obscure passage vss. 27-31. 
 
 If we examine Part I more attentively, it is found to break up 
 into three clearly marked sections: (1) vss. 1-3, gratitude to God 
 for deliverance; (2) vss. 4-19, the description of the singer's dan- 
 ger (very rhetorical and ornate); (3) vss. 20-26, the religious and 
 ethical significance of the deliverance. This last section is an 
 amplification of the closing thought of the second section (vs. 
 19b). In Part II the equipment of the warrior, his pursuit of 
 the enemy, his triumph, and thanksgiving for victory follow in 
 natural order; the whole, however, is woven more closely to- 
 gether, so that the transitions of thought are not quite so distinct 
 as in Part I. 
 
 Is it possible to take one further step and discover a strophical 
 analysis which will coincide with the logical analysis just made? 
 If the student will turn to the second section of Part I (vss. 4- 
 19), and read vss. 4, 5; vs. 6; vss. 9, 10; vss. 11, 12; vss. 13, 14 
 (omitting 13c, with LXX, as an accidental repetition of vs. 12b); 
 vs. 15; vss. 16, 17; and vss. 18, 19, he will find that the subordi- 
 nate divisions of the section naturally make little stanzas of four 
 
 44 In the case of Psalm 18 we are happily in possession of four different recen- 
 sions, Psalm 18, 2 Sam. 22, and the translation of both in the LXX. 
 
90 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW 
 
 lines each (quatrains). Only at vss. 7, 8, is this regular scheme 
 interrupted. In these verses we have six lines; and it is not at 
 all impossible that originally there was a quatrain here also. 45 
 Again, if the third section (vss. 20-26) be examined, and the 
 reader count backward from the very perfect final quatrain (vss. 
 25, 26), it will be seen that vss. 23, 24, and 21, 22, will also give 
 two excellent quatrains (the symmetry is still more evident in 
 the Hebrew). This, to be sure, leaves vs. 20 hanging in the air; 
 but vs. 20 is almost an exact duplicate of vs. 24, and may safely 
 be rejected altogether. With the elimination of this verse the 
 division into quatrains in vss. 4-26 becomes the most obvious 
 division; and when it is once observed, it is also exegetically 
 illuminating. The thoughts of the psalm are now seen to be 
 chiselled out with great care, and their outlines are sharp and 
 distinct. In the introductory section (vss. 1-3) we do not find 
 the quatrain which we certainly should expect there; but a com- 
 parison with 2 Sam. 22 2-4 again show^s that the text of the 
 section is greatly corrupted, and the conjecture is entirely proper 
 that it originally harmonized strophically with what follows. 46 In 
 passing, the completeness of Part I, taken by itself, should be 
 noticed. It is a rounded whole, composed with much artistic 
 skill. 
 
 Now let us turn to Part II (vss. 32-50). If for the moment 
 we omit vs. 32 from our reckoning and examine vss. 33-42, a 
 beautiful quatrain division can be recognized: vss. 33-34, God's 
 training of the feet and hands (participial construction in the 
 Hebrew); vss. 35, 36, God's further equipment of the hero (second 
 person; vs. 35 is admittedly corrupted and one line must be 
 omitted, cf . 2 Sam. 22 36) ; vss. 37, 38, the warrior's pursuit 
 (first person); vss. 39, 40, God's assistance in the pursuit (second 
 person again; vs. 40b probably to be emended to second person 
 with LXX [codices A and B] and Jerome); vss. 41, 42. With 
 
 45 In the Hebrew there is metrical difficulty also at vss. 11, 12. But the text 
 at this point is notoriously corrupt, as its inherent difficulties and a comparison 
 with 2 Sam. 22 12, 13, testify. 
 
 46 Whether the exact wording of the introduction can be recovered is another 
 question. Emendations thus far proposed are not very convincing. Duhm's 
 suggestion that there were originally eight lines (two quatrains) here would seem 
 to be in the right direction. 
 
THE PSALMS 91 
 
 the extra line omitted at vs. 35, for which there is warrant on 
 other grounds, nothing could be more smooth, regular, and 
 obvious than the division into quatrains in vss. 33-42. Yet this 
 arrangement leaves vs. 32 hanging in the air just as the obvious 
 arrangement of vss. 21-26 left vs. 20. But, curiously enough, 
 just as vs. 20 was seen to be a duplicate of vs. 24, so vs. 32a is 
 a duplicate of vs. 39a. Further, the thought and phraseology of 
 vs. 32b are in well-marked antithesis to vs. 30a, that is, to a verse 
 which we shall find to be a very suspicious element in a very sus- 
 picious passage. There is therefore good critical warrant for 
 suspecting that vs. 32, at least in its present form, is not to be 
 taken with what follows, although its thought is in keeping with 
 the succeeding verses. 
 
 The strophical arrangement of vss. 43-50 presents considerable 
 difficulties, which cannot be overcome without resort to the knife. 
 The verses fall into two clearly marked sections: vss. 43-45 and 
 vss. 46-50. If quatrains are found, they must agree with this 
 division into sections, and the sections themselves be kept 
 strophically distinct. In the case of vss. 43-45, verses 44 and 
 45 give a good quatrain; while vs. 43 contains only three lines. 
 Is there any way to recover the missing line? To answer, we 
 must turn to the other section. 
 
 In vss. 46-50, verses 46 and 47 will give a quatrain. Verse 49 
 is exegetically suspicious, for its spirit is wholly inconsistent with 
 the context. In the context the speaker is distinctly hostile to 
 the nations. Verse 49 is animated by benevolence toward the 
 nations. Further, verses 48 and 50 are closely connected in 
 the Hebrew by their grammatical construction. Those two 
 facts suggest that vs. 49 is an interpolation. But even if verse 
 49 is eliminated, six lines still remain, whereas only four are de- 
 sired. Accordingly, the suggestion has been made that the extra 
 line at vs. 48 (either 48b or 48c) should be transposed to a place 
 after vs. 43a, where it would fit admirably. The only other 
 line that can be lopped off is vs. 50c; and there is justification for 
 rejecting it, for this clause may well be an interpretative gloss 
 by some editor who thought that David was the author of the 
 psalm. Critically, this clause is on a level with the title. 
 
 The arrangement here suggested for vss. 43-50 is of course con- 
 
92 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW 
 
 jectural. Yet each step of the process has its own good reason, 
 and the result is attractive, even if not entirely convincing. Part 
 II of the psalm thus falls into a consistent series of quatrains, 
 which, as in Part I, correspond admirably to the thought. But 
 we cannot call Part II a consistent whole like Part I. It can- 
 not originally have begun with vs. 33. The introduction must 
 therefore be found in vss. 27-32, or else we must suppose it to 
 be lost. 
 
 This leads us to the consideration of vss. 27-31 (32). These 
 verses are exegetically unintelligible, and strophically impossible. 
 Verse 31 is a formulation of the doctrine of monotheism in no 
 organic connection with the context, which, whether we look at 
 Part I or Part II, treats of God's relation to the singer, not of 
 what God is in himself. Verse 30 might be regarded as a general- 
 ization based on the singer's experience, though why "the word 
 of Jahveh" should be emphasized in Psalm 18 does not appear, 
 and it is suspicious that clauses b and c are also found in Prov. 
 30 5. Moreover, difficulty has always been found with the text 
 and the relation of vss. 27 and 28 (cf. 2 Sam. 22 28, 29). Verse 
 27 tells what God does for an afflicted people; vs. 28 what he 
 does for the speaker. In what relation do these two thoughts 
 stand? Again, vss. 27, 28, taken together, seem to be an appli- 
 cation of the ethical principles embodied in vss. 21-26; but such 
 an application is entirely unexpected and unnecessary, since vss. 
 20-26, as we have seen, fully explain what goes before. Verses 
 27, 28, thus form a sort of limping appendix. Of all these verses 
 only vs. 29 seems in its picturesque concreteness to have any 
 connection with Part II. Strophically also, this passage is hope- 
 less. Verses 27, 28, might form a quatrain, if we could suppose 
 that the speaker identified himself with the afflicted people; 
 but vs. 29 is an isolated couplet, vs. 30 a three-line stanza, and 
 vs. 31 a tetrameter couplet. 
 
 What, then, is the significance of this passage? Observe that 
 vs. 27 unexpectedly refers to "the afflicted people"; vs. 30 is 
 also a generalization (note the plural, "all them that take 
 refuge"); and at vs. 31 we actually meet with the first person 
 plural. Light at once dawns upon the passage if it is interpreted 
 as a bit of liturgical padding inserted between the two main parts 
 
THE PSALMS 93 
 
 of the psalm. But when this is once recognized, a further conse- 
 quence is seen to follow. Since the introduction to Part II cannot 
 be found in vss. 27-31 (32), it must be lost, and vs. 29 is probably 
 a fragment of it. Further, when we ask ourselves what is the 
 relation between the two main parts of the psalm, we fail 
 to find any. The last part is usually taken as the interpretation 
 of the first part, but in that case all real progress and movement 
 must be denied to the psalm. We have seen that Part I is a 
 self-consistent and artistically perfect whole, and so is Part II, 
 with the exception of the missing introduction. The subject, 
 spirit, and style of the two parts are entirely different. We have, 
 therefore, two originally distinct psalms, and the liturgical pas- 
 sage vss. 27-31 was inserted when they were united. 47 
 
 Let us now examine the analysis proposed by Briggs. 
 
 He also recognizes two parts, but they do not coincide with 
 the two outlined above. His first part is found in vss. 1-19, his 
 second in vss. 27-50. The intervening verses, 20-27, are elimi- 
 nated, being themselves broken up into two little sections, (a) 
 vss. 20-23 (eight lines), a legal gloss from the Persian period; 
 (b) vss. 25-27 (eight lines), an ethical gloss from the Greek period. 
 The elimination of these verses w T ould appear to have no exegeti- 
 cal or strophical justification. Exegetically, they attach them- 
 selves immediately to vs. 19b, and amplify that clause in a way 
 to round out the whole poem. Strophically, Briggs's view re- 
 quires that vs. 24 go with what follows it, and vs. 27 with what 
 precedes it. Since vss. 25, 26, form a perfect quatrain, we then 
 have to suppose that it was preceded and followed by a couplet, — 
 a supposition which we have seen to be not only unnecessary 
 but improbable. 48 
 
 The motive for the elimination of these verses is clear. They 
 are, as Briggs says, inconsistent with the Davidic authorship of 
 the psalm, hence they must go out. But another conclusion 
 
 47 There have been many attempts to explain the critical difficulties of this 
 psalm. I have used the scaffolding which others have reared, but I hope to have 
 pointed out the real architectural outlines of Ps. 18 somewhat more clearly than 
 has previously been done. 
 
 48 Why Dr. Briggs should characterize one gloss as legal and Persian, and the 
 other as ethical and Greek, when both begin with exactly the same sentence (vs. 
 20 = vs. 24), is hard to understand. 
 
94 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW 
 
 would seem to be the more natural one. Verses 20-27 are inti- 
 mately connected with what precedes; and therefore at least the 
 first part of the psalm cannot be by David. The only way this 
 argument can be met is by showing that vss. 1-19 are so clearly 
 Davidic that the rejection of vss. 20-26 becomes a necessity. 
 Briggs accordingly argues for the primitive character of vss. 
 1-19, and compares the theophany in these verses to Judges 5. 
 The comparison suggests to me just the opposite view. Verses 
 1-19 are good poetry, but only in the sense of being good con- 
 ventionalized poetry; they are too formally correct to be primi- 
 tive; Part I is in no sense creative. This, however, is a judg- 
 ment of taste, and as such may or may not have argumentative 
 value. 
 
 Briggs further breaks up each of his two parts into three 
 fourteen-line (!) strophes. Without following this analysis into 
 all its details, some of its more conspicuous infelicities may be 
 pointed out. His first strophe of Part I combines vss. 4-6 with 
 vss. 1-3. This is bad, for the description of the distress is then 
 blended with the initial thanksgivings, whereas in reality there 
 is a sharp break between vss. 1-3 and vss. 4 ff. Again, his first 
 strophe of Part II combines vss. 28-32 with vss. 33, 34. This is 
 worse, for the liturgical generalizations of vss. 28-31 should not 
 be combined with the highly concrete and intimate descriptions 
 which begin at vs. 33. But even in the form which Briggs gives 
 to it this first strophe cannot be hewed out without resort to the 
 most improbable suppositions. For example, vs. 30b is rejected 
 while 30c is accepted. Yet both clauses are found together in 
 Prov. 30 5; and why should they be torn apart here? So vs. 31 
 is admittedly a tetrameter, and admittedly monotheistic and as 
 such out of relation with the context and inconsistent with Davidic 
 authorship. If there was ever a good case for a gloss, one would 
 think it would be found here. But Briggs emends the line into 
 a trimeter, and turns its monotheism into henotheism in the 
 couplet : 
 
 For who is a God (like) Yahweh? 
 
 And who is a Rock (like) our God? 
 
 It is difficult to follow such a procedure. Is it really responsible 
 criticism? Furthermore, out of vss. 43-50 Briggs makes one of 
 
THE PSALMS 95 
 
 his long stanzas. This is accomplished by the elimination, not 
 only of vs. 49, for which there is good reason, but also of vss. 
 44b and 45. On the other hand, vs. 50c is retained, and thus the 
 necessity of the transposition suggested above is avoided. The 
 greater simplicity of this theory is an advantage, but the pro- 
 priety of eliminating vss. 44b, 45, rather than vs. 50c, may be 
 doubted, and we have already seen that the division into fourteen- 
 line stanzas has broken down completely at two crucial points. 
 Elsewhere it is so awkward as compared with the division into 
 quatrains that no adequate justification for attempting to find 
 a fourteen-line stanza in vss. 43-50 can be drawn from the fact 
 that the rest of the psalm is so divided. To the present reviewer 
 Briggs's poetical analysis of Psalm 18 appears to have no exe- 
 getical basis in the text, but on the contrary is opposed to all the 
 exegetical probabilities of the case. The attempt to save the 
 Davidic authorship by the supposition of glosses and accretions 
 is in the present instance a failure. 49 
 
 It is a pleasure to turn from Briggs's analysis of Psalm 18 to 
 his restoration of Psalm 73. Psalm 73 is one of the greatest of 
 the whole collection; it is the hymn of an original religious genius. 
 In his work upon this psalm we see Briggs's poetical analysis at 
 its best, and we cannot be too grateful to him for the thorough 
 and convincing way in which he has restored to us this master- 
 piece in all its rugged grandeur. 
 
 Psalm 73, like Psalm 18, falls into two parts: Part I, vss. 1-12, 
 the recognition by the poet of the prosperity of the wicked; Part 
 II, vss. 13-28, the effect of this recognition upon the poet's faith. 
 Can these two parts again be broken up into exegetically justified 
 strophical divisions? In the present instance this question is 
 complicated with that of the identification of the speaker. From 
 vs. 1 it might be argued that the "I" of the speaker is collective, 
 and refers to the personified congregation of the godly. On the 
 
 49 The only portion of the psalm which might lay claim to Davidic authorship 
 is Part II. Here there are a number of details which would seem to fit David, or 
 an idealized David, better than any other character in Israel's history, but here 
 language and literary connections (compare vss. 44, 45, with Micah 7 17, especially 
 in the peculiarities of the Hebrew) make the Davidic authorship very dubious, 
 even if the authenticity of this psalm were treated solely by itself and apart from 
 considerations of the growth of the Psalter as a whole. 
 
96 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW 
 
 other hand, an examination of the rest of the psalm would suggest 
 that if there is an individual speaker anywhere in the Psalter, 
 it is here. The feeling in the psalm is poignant and personal to 
 the last degree. Briggs rightly feels this, and accordingly holds 
 that vs. 1 is a liturgical gloss. The strophical analysis will there- 
 fore begin with vs. 2. A division into quatrains can be readily 
 followed through the rest of Part I (vss. 2, 3; vss. 4, 5; vss. 6, 7; 
 vss. 8, 9) until we reach vss. 10-12. Here there are two lines 
 too many. Verse 10 is eliminated by Briggs, and on good grounds. 
 The verse is very obscure (it would seem to be promissory); 
 and it interrupts the connection, since vs. 11 naturally tells what 
 the wicked men of vs. 9 say. With vss. 1 and 10 thus elimi- 
 nated on entirely intelligible grounds, 50 Part I is seen to fall into 
 five quatrains. 
 
 In Part II there is an exegetical difficulty. The "for" at vs. 
 21 does not attach itself readily to what immediately precedes, 
 and would seem rather to refer to vss. 15, 16. Thus the syntax 
 suggests that vss. 17-20 may be an interpolation. The verses 
 contain a description of the final lot of the wicked in terms of the 
 theology of Job's friends. If they are retained, the poet, though 
 cast down by the thought of the present prosperity of the wicked, 
 yet takes comfort in the belief that they will ultimately be pun- 
 ished. After this he is ready to cast himself upon God, vss. 
 23 fl\ But how much the psalm gains in power when vss. 17-20 
 are omitted! The psalmist realizes the great theological diffi- 
 culties which the prosperity of the wicked presents, and has no 
 solution for them. All he can do is to make the great venture of 
 faith, and unreservedly trust in God. How the wonderful glow 
 of the living faith, created by the friction of doubt, which finds 
 expression in vss. 23 ff., is chilled into a formal dogma by vss. 
 17-20! But if these verses are removed, it is probable that vss. 
 27, 28, are also to be pruned away. In them the same doctrine 
 emerges as in vss. 17-20. Also, the psalm reaches its radiant 
 climax in vss. 21-26: vss. 27, 28, are only embers. It is prob- 
 
 50 Briggs's assumed glosses are not always so convincing. When he says, for 
 example, of Ps. 59 14, "A prosaic editor made the couplet into a prose sentence," 
 one can but ask what the editor's object was in doing this. This sort of explana- 
 tion that does not explain is found again and again. 
 
THE PSALMS 97 
 
 able that here again we have liturgical accretions, and the LXX 
 adds still another line, "In the gates of the Daughter of Zion," 
 which indicates that the present end of the psalm, like the 
 beginning (vs. 1), was adapted to congregational use. If 
 vss. 17-20 and 27, 28, be rejected, Part II will also be found 
 to have exactly five quatrains (vss. 13, 14; vss. 15, 16; vss. 21, 
 22; vss. 23, 24; vss. 25, 26). In this reconstruction the psalm 
 stands out in all its original perfection of form and nobility of 
 thought. 
 
 I have thought it more instructive to show the reader in detail 
 in the case of the two important psalms just discussed how 
 Briggs applies his metrical and strophical theories to the restora- 
 tion of the psalms rather than to make bare reference to a larger 
 number of examples. What is true of his exposition of these 
 psalms is true for the others. In some cases he takes the fortress, 
 in some he fails. The interesting thing to observe is that even 
 an approximately correct theory of Hebrew metre does not guar- 
 antee convincing results in criticism. These depend after all very 
 largely upon skilful exegesis and textual criticism. Without 
 these a metrical theory is a dangerous tool, as apt to do damage 
 as to be serviceable. With them a metrical theory can often be 
 used with excellent effect when other tools fail. 
 
 It will be interesting, therefore, to look at Briggs's treatment 
 of questions which are fundamentally exegetical rather than his- 
 torical or critical. For this purpose I have selected his discus- 
 sion of certain typical "I-psalms," because, while criticism often 
 enters into this discussion, yet in the main the definition of the 
 "I" is a distinctively exegetical question; and it is here that the 
 exegetical skill of a commentator can most readily be discerned. 
 
 It will be well at the outset to give a brief sketch of the history 
 of this problem, and to indicate its signal importance. The 
 tendency to explain the "I" collectively of the Jewish people 
 is already to be seen in the Septuagint, for instance in the title 
 of Psalm 56. The Targum interprets in this way Psalms 23, 38, 
 5Q, and 88. In the Talmud the problem was clearly formulated: 
 "R. Eliezer says: David spoke all the psalms in his own interest; 
 R. Joshua thinks : In the interest of the congregation. The Wise 
 on the other hand explain: He spoke some in his own interest, 
 
98 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW 
 
 some in the interest of the congregation." 61 The church fathers, 
 notably Theodore of Mopsuestia, at times adopted the collec- 
 tive theory, and the great Jewish commentators of the Middle 
 Ages maintained it, although in varying degrees. On the other 
 hand, Calvin, an exegete greater than them all, interpreted the 
 "I" individualistically, no doubt because of his hostility to 
 everything that savored of the allegorical method of exegesis. 
 But it was reserved for the nineteenth century to discuss the 
 problem of the exact identification of the speaker in the Psalms 
 at length and in all its bearings. Only then did the fundamental 
 significance of the problem for the interpretation of the Psalter 
 fully reveal itself. Passing over Olshausen's commentary on the 
 Psalms (1853), in which the Psalter was regarded as the song-book 
 of the Second Temple, and the Psalms treated as hymns primarily 
 designed for public worship, the "I" being therefore collective, 
 attention must be called to the epoch-making essay of Smend, 
 "t)ber das Ich in den Psalmen" in the Zeitschrift fur alttestament- 
 liche Wissenschaft (1888). Since the appearance of this paper, 
 and largely because of it, an extensive literature on the subject 
 has developed. The monographs of Beer (1894) and Coblenz 
 (1897), already mentioned, and the discussion of the subject in 
 Cheyne's Historical Origin and Religious Ideas of the Psalter 
 (1891), are among the main contributions; but since Smend's 
 essay every Old Testament scholar has had to define his own 
 attitude toward the problem. How far-reaching this exegetical 
 question may become may be briefly illustrated. 
 
 (1) Smend argues on a priori grounds that the "I" of the 
 Psalter must be collective, because the Psalter is a temple hymn- 
 book. But was it so? At least, was it only a temple hymn-book? 
 Briggs holds that it was used in the synagogue also; Duhm be- 
 lieves that it was designed for private as well as public devotion. 
 The so-called "anti-sacrificial psalms" certainly do not favor 
 the idea of exclusive use in the temple service. The identifica- 
 tion of the "I" is thus closely related to the question of the 
 
 51 Cited from Coblenz, tJber das betende Ich in den Psalmen, p. 2. [Coblenz 
 has not quoted the whole passage; it continues: "Those which are expressed in 
 the singular number refer to himself, those in the plural to the community" 
 (Pesahim 117 a).— Ed.] 
 
THE PSALMS 99 
 
 purpose of the Psalter, and so we are led into a new series of 
 problems. 
 
 (2) In by far the largest number of the "I-psalms" the speaker 
 is surrounded by enemies. Who are these enemies? Are they 
 private enemies of a private individual, or public enemies of a 
 public individual, or the public enemies, whether foreign or do- 
 mestic, of the community? Have we, that is, in these psalms 
 reflections of private quarrels, or of wars, or of party contests? 
 It will readily be seen what importance the answer to these ques- 
 tions may have for the dating of these psalms. 
 
 (3) If the speaker should prove to be a collective person, the 
 religion of the speaker is the religion of the community. Then, 
 since the religion of the Psalter is in general of the same type 
 throughout, the natural inference is that the psalms originated 
 in the same general period, and a community-religion of that 
 type can only be understood in the conditions of the post-exilic 
 period. The identification of the "I" is thus brought, as Smend 
 expressly urges, into direct connection with the dating of the 
 psalms. 
 
 (4) The ethics of the Psalms assumes a very different complexion 
 according as the "I" is interpreted individualistically or col- 
 lectively. The difficulties of the imprecatory psalms, for ex- 
 ample, are relieved, even if not altogether removed, if it is held 
 that the curses are not expressions of individual hatred against 
 other individuals but rather of community feeling against other 
 parties or nations. Community hatred may be very bitter, 
 and yet be coupled at times with generous consideration for 
 individuals of the opposite party; and thus the fierceness of 
 these psalms may not always represent personal hatred. 
 
 (5) The same question enters in a crucial way into some of 
 our judgments upon the religious significance of the Psalter. For 
 example, under the individualistic interpretation Ps. 16 10, 11, 
 probably refers to personal immortality. On the collective in- 
 terpretation it refers only to the preservation of the community. 
 Again, under the individualistic interpretation, the sense of sin 
 in Psalm 51 would be a sense of personal sin, and would approxi- 
 mate to the Pauline conception. On the collective theory it 
 would be the confession of the sin of the community. 
 
100 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW 
 
 (6) Finally, the interpretation of the "I" is of great impor- 
 tance for the proper interpretation of the Messianic passages in 
 the Psalter. On the usual patristic theory it is Christ himself 
 who speaks in the Psalms. Thus Psalm 22 becomes a direct 
 description by Christ himself of his own passion. On the collec- 
 tive theory such an interpretation of Psalm 22 is impossible. 
 On the other hand, passages which would have no messianic 
 significance under the individualistic interpretation may acquire 
 such significance under the collective view. The confidence ex- 
 pressed in Psalm 6, if the speaker is Israel, is a confidence in the 
 messianic future. On the individualistic interpretation there is 
 no messianic reference whatever in this psalm. 
 
 It will be seen that the problem of the identification of the 
 "I" is really the fundamental exegetical problem in the great 
 majority of the Psalms. Does this problem stand out clearly 
 in our present commentary? Far from it. In the introduction 
 no allusion is made to it. Even in the section on Interpre- 
 tation it is not mentioned, though this would have been a fit- 
 ting place for some information upon the subject. The student 
 stumbles upon the problem for the first time at Psalm 5, in 
 which the "I" is interpreted collectively by Briggs. The omis- 
 sion of any preliminary discussion of so important a topic puts 
 the student at a serious disadvantage. Not even when Briggs 
 comes to the detailed exposition of the "I-psalms" in the com- 
 mentary does he make good the omission by enlarging upon 
 the subject. At Psalm 5, where the question of the identification 
 of the "I" is first raised, the collective theory which is adopted 
 is not proved, but is simply assumed. Inasmuch as there are no 
 very clear individualizing traits in the psalm apart from the use 
 of the first person, this might be allowed to pass, but when we 
 come to Psalm 6 and its kindred "invalid psalms" (Psalms 38, 41, 
 22, 30, 69, 88, and 102) we are confronted with an exegetical 
 problem of the most delicate description. In the interpretation 
 of these psalms failure to set forth the reasons for the theory 
 adopted is fatal. 
 
 Take for example Psalm 6. In vss. l-7a the speaker describes 
 himself as a sick man, in vs. 7 specifically referring to his bed, 
 and prays that God may deliver him from his sickness. On the 
 
THE PSALMS 101 
 
 other hand, in vss. 7b-10 all reference to sickness is dropped, and 
 enemies take the place of sickness. Further, in these last verses 
 there is no prayer for deliverance, but an assurance that God has 
 already heard the psalmist's prayer and will deliver him from his 
 enemies; the past tenses in vss. 8, 9, are "perfects of assurance. " 
 At first sight it seems as if the two parts could have nothing to 
 do with each other and as if the psalm were composite. If unity 
 is to be brought into the psalm, the most natural method is to 
 hold that the sickness described in the first part is a figure for 
 the persecution implied in the second part. Then the prayer for 
 deliverance from sickness in vss. l-7a becomes the prayer which 
 is answered in vss. 7b-10, where the figure is dropped, and unity 
 of subject is introduced into the psalm. But if the "I" is an 
 individual, the poet has in the first part needlessly hidden his 
 meaning. The reference certainly seems to be to actual sickness, 
 and the sudden change in the last part to enemies is unmediated 
 and confusing, and therefore bad from a literary point of view. 
 If, on the other hand, the "I" is collective, it would be 
 understood at once that sickness is only a figure, and hence the 
 transition from the figure in vss. l-7a to the thing figured in vss. 
 7b-10 would be natural and easy. 
 
 But there is another exegetical difficulty in this psalm. How 
 can the sudden change from almost despairing entreaty in vss. 
 l-7a to confidence in vss. 7b-10 be accounted for? Why is the 
 speaker so sure that God will stand by him as against his ene- 
 mies? Why is he so certain that he is in the right? On the 
 individualistic theory this is hard to explain. It is usually sup- 
 posed that in the very expression of his despair the speaker in- 
 duces a reaction and finds relief. Hope takes the place of agony. 
 Of course this is psychologically possible, but it would seem far 
 simpler to hold to the collective interpretation of the "I." In 
 that case the community can be easily thought of as persuaded 
 that the cause of the religion of Jahveh was so bound up in its 
 own redemption that God must deliver it from its enemies. Thus, 
 under the collective interpretation of the "I," the hope in vss. 
 8-10 becomes messianic. 
 
 The collective interpretation of Psalm 6 is strongly confirmed 
 when we turn to Psalm 38. Here we meet with the same curious 
 
102 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW 
 
 difference between the first and last parts of the psalm. In 
 vss. 1-11 the speaker describes himself as sick, but in vss. 12-22 
 (except vs. 17b) only persecution by enemies is referred to. In 
 Psalm 38 there is not the change from despair to assurance which 
 is found in Psalm 6, but there are several new and important 
 factors which bear upon the interpretation of the "I." The 
 description of the sickness is given in such varied terms that it 
 can hardly refer to a real sickness, and the phraseology of verses 
 3, 5, and 7 seems to be consciously reminiscent of Isaiah 1 6, 
 where the nation is described as sick. Most important of all, 
 there is a remarkable, and at first sight unaccountable, paradox 
 in the psalm. In the first half the singer acknowledges his guilt; 
 it is because of his sin that all his troubles have come upon him. 
 But in the second half (with the exception of vs. 18) he appears 
 to be innocent and wrongfully persecuted by his enemies. It is 
 hard to explain this paradox if the speaker is an individual, but 
 simple if the "I" is collective. A community, especially if it be 
 the community of the pious, can acknowledge its guilt, since it 
 is a part of the nation, and can explain its sufferings accordingly. 
 But as against the nations or the ungodly among the Jews them- 
 selves the congregation of the pious can maintain its inno- 
 cence. 
 
 These, in outline, are the arguments which have been advanced 
 to prove a collective "I" in these two very interesting, but at 
 first sight perplexing, psalms. Does Briggs use any of these argu- 
 ments or contribute anything new to the discussion? On Psalm 
 6 he merely remarks in the introductory note, "The Ps. was 
 composed for the congregation, and there is no trace in it of the 
 experience of an individual." In the exposition proper the col- 
 lective theory is assumed, no exegetical argument being advanced 
 for it. 
 
 No reference whatever is made to the peculiar relationship of 
 the two parts of the psalm, and on the abrupt change from 
 despair to assurance at vs. 8 we have the merely passing note 
 that the congregation's "prayer receives its answer while they 
 are making it." This would seem to imply the psychological 
 explanation of the transition offered by the advocates of the 
 individualistic interpretation, — an explanation which is unneces- 
 
THE PSALMS 103 
 
 sary and even unnatural on the collective theory. The comment 
 on the sympathetic relationship between the singer's trouble 
 and his aching bones also agrees with Beer's individualistic in- 
 terpretation of the psalm, but is hardly pertinent on the col- 
 lective view. Again, vs. 5 must be interpreted figuratively if 
 the "I" is collective, but no explanation of its figurative sig- 
 nificance is forthcoming. To the statement that there is no trace 
 of the experience of an individual in Psalm 6 an advocate of the 
 opposite view might urge vs. 6; so Coblenz, though sympathetic 
 toward the collective interpretation in many of the psalms, holds 
 to the individualistic interpretation of Psalm 6 mainly on ac- 
 count of this one verse. Briggs ignores the difficulty which 
 it presents to his theory. 
 
 On Psalm 38, again, there is not an argument advanced for the 
 collective theory. On the contrary, our author robs himself of 
 a very strong confirmatory argument furnished by this psalm, 
 namely the paradox of the simultaneous confession of sin and the 
 assertion of innocence by the speaker. On metrical grounds 
 vss. 2-5 and vs. 18, in which the confession of sin is found, are 
 rejected as accretions, and the paradox is thus removed; but at 
 the same time the interesting argument from it for the collective 
 theory is lost. On vs. 18b the suggestion is made that a later 
 editor inserted this verse, "in order to adapt the psalm to public 
 worship." But if the "I" is collective, the psalm must havebeen 
 originally designed for public worship; the comment is really 
 inconsistent with the view taken of the "I." On the collective 
 theory some attempt should be made to identify the lovers and 
 friends of vs. 11 and the enemies of vs. 12, but the comment 
 on vs. 11 is simply the paraphrase "those upon whom I could 
 ordinarily rely for sympathy and aid." 52 Nothing is distinctly 
 said on the identification of the enemies. One might infer from 
 
 52 A considerable portion of the exposition printed in large type is devoted to 
 just such tautological paraphrases of the Biblical phraseology. For instance, in 
 the present psalm, vs. 6, "7 am bent || bowed down], by a weight of care, anxiety, 
 and suffering, and this, exceedingly, to the utmost degree of intensity"; vs. 8, 
 "I am benumbed and crushed]. Strength has so departed from him that he has 
 become, as it were, paralysed and incapable of effort"; vs. 10, " The light of mine 
 eyes], the light that illumines the eyes, enabling them to see what is to be done, 
 giving confidence and courage." 
 
104 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW 
 
 the time at which the psalm is dated (in the restoration before 
 Nehemiah) that foreign enemies were thought of, but this is not 
 certain. As a matter of fact, in the comment on Psalm 6 the 
 enemies are explained as "workers of trouble in Israel itself." 
 
 In Psalm 41 the various factors that entered into the identi- 
 fication of the "I" in Psalms 6 and 38 are again all present, but 
 this time the concreteness of expression is so striking that the 
 psalm would be almost unintelligible did we not have the two 
 former psalms to guide us. Sickness and persecution are again 
 found, but intermingled in a most confusing way. The enemies 
 are represented as gathered around the bedside of the dying 
 man, malignantly slandering him and devising evil against him 
 (vs. 8). There is also the confession of guilt (vs. 4) and the 
 assertion of innocence (vss. 11, 12) already found in Psalm 38, 
 and the sudden transition from despair (vss. 1-9) to hope (vss. 
 10-12) found in Psalm 6, though in Psalm 41 an additional venge- 
 ful cry is sent up to the Lord for recovery in order that the speaker 
 may requite his enemies. The individualizing traits of the psalm 
 are especially pronounced. Smend says of it, " One can learn from 
 this song how far the personification of the community can go." 
 Duhm, on the other hand, who follows the individualistic inter- 
 pretation throughout, draws a repulsive picture of the state of 
 society reflected by this psalm, — with the sick man on his death- 
 bed, surrounded by hypocritical friends who, like Job's comforters, 
 argue from his sufferings to his wickedness and, dominated by 
 their wretched dogmas, fairly gloat over his condition, while the 
 dying man himself with his last breath cries to God for recovery 
 so that he may avenge himself upon them. It is a lovely death- 
 bed scene of one of the people of God! 
 
 Surely in the case of such a psalm there ought to be some dis- 
 cussion of the identification of the "I," with a defence of the col- 
 lective theory, if that is adopted. But as usual there is simply 
 the statement, "The Ps. is national . . . and there is no reference 
 to an individual." This time Briggs seems to have felt that some 
 explanation of vs. 9 on the collective theory is due. It is in- 
 terpreted (in all probability correctly) of "nations in covenant, 
 who have treacherously broken covenant and become bitter 
 enemies," but unfortunately there is no reference to Obadiah 7 
 
THE PSALMS 105 
 
 which supports the nationalistic interpretation, at least if the 
 text of that passage can be trusted. 53 As in Psalm 38, the clause 
 in which sin is confessed (vs. 4b) is rejected. It may be noted 
 also that vs. 10b is dropped on metrical grounds. 
 
 An equal obliviousness to the need of any exegetical defence of 
 the collective theory of the "I" is found in the exposition of Psalm 
 30, though here Sheol in verse 3, cf. verse 9, is interpreted of 
 national exile, with reference to Ezekiel 37. This is the explana- 
 tion which we looked for at the parallel passage Psalm 6 5. It 
 was just as much needed there, but was not given. 
 
 On Psalm 88 there is a somewhat clearer exposition of the details 
 of the psalm on the basis of the collective theory, and at vs. 15 
 there is the first exegetical argument for the collective "I" to be 
 met with anywhere in the comment on the five psalms thus far 
 reviewed. It is urged that the reference to "youth" in this verse 
 cannot be satisfactorily explained if the "I" is an individual. 54 
 
 In the case of Psalms 22, 69, and 102 the identification of the 
 speaker is complicated by the serious critical problem of the 
 integrity of these psalms. Psalm 69 I shall pass by, since the 
 analysis of this psalm, both logically and poetically, is too un- 
 certain to allow of a clear formulation of our problem. Attention 
 need only be called to the fact that it is analyzed by Briggs 
 into two distinct psalms, in one of which the "I" seems to be an 
 individual prophet, and in the other the ideal community. The 
 grounds for the analysis are metrical, and of doubtful cogency. 
 Duhm, for example, has a different metrical theory of the psalm. 
 Briggs makes no attempt to explain why the "I" is interpreted 
 differently in the two parts which he thinks he can distinguish 
 in the psalm. 
 
 53 The crucial objection to the collective interpretation of Psalm 41 is found 
 in vss. 1-3, a didactic observation and strongly individualizing. Briggs notes 
 that these verses are "in a strange sort of isolation"; he adopts a new translation 
 in order to connect them with what follows, but the translation is more than doubt- 
 ful. If the collective theory is adopted, it is probable that vss. 1-3 will have to 
 be eliminated. It is difficult to connect them with the rest of the psalm, even 
 on the individualistic interpretation. 
 
 54 The only meaning it could possibly have on the individualistic interpretation 
 would be that the speaker had been all his life a chronic invalid. Duhm seeks 
 by emendation to avoid this objection to the individualistic interpretation. 
 
106 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW 
 
 In the case of Psalms 22 and 102 the bearing of the critical 
 problem upon the identification of the "I" can be much more 
 readily grasped by the reader. Psalm 22 1-21 contrasts strik- 
 ingly with vss. 22-31, and even the Revised Version separates 
 the two parts by a space. On the supposition of the unity of 
 the psalm, the praise for the deliverance of the afflicted in vss. 
 22-31 can be naturally interpreted only as praise for the deliver- 
 ance of the afflicted speaker in vss. 1-21. Now this deliverance 
 not only has a national significance (vs. 23), but has a world-wide 
 application (vs. 27), in fact a messianic significance in the largest 
 sense. The nations are to be converted to Jahveh because of 
 this deliverance, and its effects will be felt upon nations yet 
 unborn, vss. 27-31. If we allow vss. 22-31 to govern our theory 
 of the personality of the speaker in the first part of the psalm, 
 he must be either a most extraordinary individual, who yet can- 
 not be identified with any person known in Jewish history, or he 
 is the personified community. 55 The advocates of the collective 
 "I" urge vss. 22-31 as one of the strongest arguments in support 
 of their theory. This is said to be corroborated by the fact that 
 in vs. 4 the personification is dropped for a moment and the 
 actual "we" of the congregation appears ("Our fathers trusted 
 in thee"), and by the further fact that the present condition of 
 the "I" in vs. 6 (very emphatic in the Hebrew) seems to contrast 
 with the previous condition of the nation in vss. 4, 5, which would 
 be unnatural except on the collective theory. It might be thought 
 that at vss. 22 and 25 the speaker separates himself from the 
 community and is accordingly an individual. There is a diffi- 
 culty here for the collective interpretation, but it is by no means 
 fatal. We may explain it with Smend by the theory that "Israel 
 is distinct from the Israelites, cf. Hosea 1 and 2," or we may 
 suppose with Coblenz that in verses 22 and 25 the individual 
 members of the congregation are speaking. 
 
 In our commentary the collective theory of the speaker seems to 
 be adopted, but the unity of the psalm is denied, and of the last 
 part only verses 22 and 25 are admitted to belong to the origi- 
 nal. Herein is a marvellous thing. That part of the psalm which 
 
 55 Even Calvin did not venture to identify the speaker in this psalm directly 
 with Christ. 
 
THE PSALMS 107 
 
 can be urged most forcibly for the collective theory is rejected, 
 but those verses which bear most strongly against the theory are 
 retained. Yet the collective theory is adopted without one word 
 of explanation as to the bearing of either of these points upon it. 
 In this psalm, however, we meet with the second instance thus 
 far observed of an exegetical argument for the collective theory 
 of the "I." In the introduction to the psalm it is said that "the 
 description is too varied for any individual experience." But no 
 inference as to the nature of the "I" is drawn from the first 
 person plural in vss. 4, 5. 56 
 
 Finally, with regard to Psalm 102, if its unity is accepted, the 
 case for the collective "I" may be considered to be proved be- 
 yond peradventure. In vss. 13 ff. Zion stands out in her own 
 proper person. If there is any connection at all between these 
 verses and what has gone before, the "I" of the first part of 
 the psalm must be collective. As for Psalm 22, the collective 
 theory is maintained ("the author wrote in the person of af- 
 flicted Israel"), but the unity of the psalm, which is the strong- 
 est support of the theory, is denied. It must be confessed that 
 the argument for the composite character of Psalm 102 is particu- 
 larly strong, but the point is that our author seems quite oblivi- 
 ous of the bearing of the critical question upon the exegesis. 
 
 The present reviewer cannot pretend to have examined the 
 treatment accorded to all the "I-psalms" in the present com- 
 mentary. But a typical group of them has been selected in which 
 the exegetical problem of the identification of the "I" is pe- 
 culiarly acute and demands at least an attempt at solution. 
 For not one of these psalms is there anything that can be called 
 a discussion of the question. Only two exegetical arguments in 
 favor of the collective "I" have been found in the sixty-two 
 
 56 The unity of Psalm 22 is a fairly debatable question. The transition from 
 the first part to the second is certainly abrupt. Yet it has its analogy in Psalm 6, 
 the integrity of which is universally admitted. Further, the relation of the last 
 part to the first corresponds so strikingly with Isa. 53 (cf . Beer's illuminating ex- 
 position) that it seems hardly due to chance compilation. But even if the original 
 unity of the psalm is denied, the present combination of the two parts can hardly 
 have been made on any other than a collective theory of the "I" (unless we hold 
 that it is due simply to accident), and hence it may be argued that at the time of 
 the redaction of this psalm the collective theory of the "I" was prevalent (a point 
 not noticed by Briggs). 
 
108 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW 
 
 pages devoted to the exposition of these psalms. The theory is 
 regularly assumed, but the arguments for it are either ignored 
 or are actually invalidated, as by the critical theories adopted 
 in the case of Psalms 22, 69, and 102. The difficulties in the way 
 of the theory, especially those presented by the detailed personifica- 
 tions which must be assumed, are largely passed over without 
 a word of explanation. This means that the really vital problems 
 in the interpretation of these interesting and important psalms 
 are scarcely touched, for they can only be revealed in a discussion 
 of the identification of the "I." 57 
 
 It is unnecessary to sum up the general results of our review. 
 The dissent from the methods followed in this commentary may 
 seem to some to have been emphasized too strongly; yet I trust 
 that the discussion has made it evident that the dissent is an 
 honest and not a captious one. Of the four topics which have 
 been reviewed, the interest and permanent value of the com- 
 mentary, apart from the vast collection of material, word-studies, 
 and discussions of the literary relationships of the psalms, lie 
 in the treatment of the poetical form of the psalms. The establish- 
 ment of the original poetic forms of the psalms is the one domi- 
 nant interest of the commentary. Here many valuable sugges- 
 tions have undoubtedly been made of which the professional 
 student of the future will make grateful use. But in the nature 
 
 57 In the above discussion as to the nature of the speaker no notice has been 
 taken of the light which the Babylonian penitential psalms may throw upon the 
 problem. These psalms would seem to have been originally individualistic, though 
 afterwards adapted to liturgical purposes. In many respects they are very sim- 
 ilar to the Hebrew "invalid psalms" (compare the end of the truly remarkable 
 psalm cited in Jeremias, "Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients," 
 pp. 210 fl\, with Ps. 41), and might suggest that after all the "I" in the latter 
 psalms was originally individualistic, though its exegetical argument is strongly 
 in favor of a collective theory. Briggs does not refer to the Babylonian analogies in 
 his comments on the psalms which have been examined above. In general, the 
 analogies between the Hebrew Psalter and other ancient Oriental literature do not 
 seem greatly to interest him. He does not once mention the great hymn of Chue- 
 naten in his exposition of Ps. 104. He alludes to the Babylonian Tiamat-myth 
 in connection with Ps. 89 10 ff., but unfortunately explains the very similar passage 
 Ps. 74 12 ff. of the redemption from Egypt, whereas it almost certainly refers 
 to the creation-myth. On the other hand, it is interesting to notice that Briggs 
 inclines to an original mythological background for Ps. 19. In this view he agrees 
 with Gunkel, though the two scholars arrived at it quite independently of one 
 another. 
 
THE PSALMS 109 
 
 of the case those results are not exact or final, but are necessarily 
 conjectural. The lay reader or minister or theological student 
 who may use this book must constantly keep in mind the tentative 
 nature of the poetical analysis, and always test the reconstruction 
 by the requirements of exegesis. Unfortunately, on the side of 
 exegesis the commentary does not inspire confidence. 
 
110 
 
 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW 
 
 MEDIAEVAL GERMAN MYSTICISM 
 KUNO FRANCKE 
 
 Harvard University 
 
 The German mysticism of the fourteenth century was one of 
 the most remarkable manifestations of that individualistic trend 
 of thought and feeling which set in during the thirteenth century 
 with the height of chivalric culture, developed under the influ- 
 ence of the growth of civic independence in the great municipal 
 republics, and finally, in the religious Reformation of the sixteenth 
 century, overturned the whole corporate system of the mediaeval 
 church and state. 
 
 The fundamental thought of the German mystics of the four- 
 teenth century was nothing new. It was a revived and chris- 
 tianized Neoplatonism. Throughout the Middle Ages more 
 subtle thinkers had been fascinated by the neoplatonic concep- 
 tion, that the world is an incessant and gradual differentiation 
 of the originally undivided and undifferentiated Divine; that 
 man, however, and man alone, possesses the power by a free 
 act of will to reverse this incessant process of differentiation, 
 and thus to return from the diaspora of manifold phenomena 
 into the oneness of the undivided Divine. The so-called Diony- 
 sius Areopagita, Scotus Erigena, Hugo and Richard of St. Victor, 
 Bernard of Clairvaux — these all see the essential goal of human 
 life in this return from the many into the one; they all love to 
 dwell on the different stages of inner concentration by which man 
 approaches this goal; they all praise enthusiastically the state 
 of highest self-surrender where man is completely welded into 
 one with the Divine — as the waterdrop is resolved into wine; 
 or as iron, melting in the fire, seems to become fire, or as the air, 
 illuminated by the sun, seems itself to become sunlight. It is, 
 however, no exaggeration to say that this ideal of complete self- 
 surrender of the individual to the infinite has seldom produced 
 such a variety of individual life as in the German mystics of the 
 fourteenth century. Three of the most pronounced personalities