1. 11-21.
At first sight, the contents of the Psalter may seem to occasion relatively little difficulty to the exegete, as compared with the prophecies. The psalms are for the most part simple and often conventional in language, and without those references to obscure historical events which make the writings of the prophets so difficult. But the apparent gain is really a great loss to historical exegesis. Whilst the absence of reference to contemporary events makes the psalms much more capable of use then than now in worship and devotion—it was in some measure due, we may suppose, to elimination and adaptation—yet it also makes the investigation of the original meaning more difficult. Thus it is usually impossible to give a precise historical background to a particular psalm. The titles professing to do this, and to ascribe authorship, are of little use for critical purposes, and represent a late and usually worthless conjecture. Scholars have now gen erally abandoned the earlier attempts to ascribe particular psalms to precise events from the Davidic down to the Maccabean age; there is considerable variety of opinion as to the nature, date, authorship and origin of the psalms considered individually.
Four main questions arise : to what extent are the psalms primarily and originally "cultic," more or less officially composed for use in public worship, and to what extent are they private religious lyrics, gathered from many sources, and subsequently adapted to use in the temple-services? (2) In close relation with this question comes another as to the significance of the speaker in many of the psalms; does the "I" mean the whole community, or is it an individual person who is speaking? (3) To what period of the religious history of Israel do the psalms chiefly belong, and to what extent are they pre-exilic in origin, though admittedly post-exilic in present adaptation and arrangement? (4) Are they a native product or are they dependent on Babylonian or Egyptian models, as the creation stories of Genesis are dependent on Baby lonian mythology? It will be seen that these are not merely academic questions, for each of them may affect the exegesis of a particular psalm. A quarter of a century ago, the answers to these four questions generally given by critical scholarship were as follows: (I) the psalms are chiefly poems of the individual, though some were intended from the outset for use in the temple ; (2) the "I" of the psalms usually represents the community; (3) the psalms are almost wholly post-exilic in origin; (4) they are native products. All these answers are now being met with vigor ous criticism. At the present moment the protagonists in this criticism are the German scholar, Gunkel, and the Norwegian scholar, Mowinckel. Some account of their views must be given, as they cannot be neglected by the modern student of the psalms.
Gunkel's leading principle is that the psalms should be studied in their "classes" (Gattungen) or types, of which he finds four of chief importance, viz., "hymns" (e.g., cxlv cxlvii., cxlviii., cl.), "national laments" (e.g., xliv . , lxxix. , lxxx. , lxxxiii.), "individual laments" (iii., liv., lxxxviii.) and "individual thanksgivings" (xxx., lxvi., 13 seq.). These classes are differentiated by the use of regular formulae, such as "Deliver us, Yahweh," or "I will thank Yahweh," and by more or less regular forms of composition, so that we are not left to subjective impressions only when deciding as to what class a particular psalm belongs. On the basis of this
differentiation Gunkel constructs a general history of the "classes," partly from internal evidence, such as the greater length, indi vidualization, or composite character of the later representatives of the class, and partly from the parallels with psalm-like com positions found elsewhere in the Old Testament, which it is pos sible to date with confidence, such as the Song of Miriam (Exod. xv. 21), the song of the seraphim heard by Isaiah in the temple (vi. 3), the lyrics of Jeremiah and the "Psalms of Solomon" (1st century B.e.). Gunkel's general conclusion is that hymns of praise and national laments were found at an early date, whilst individual laments arose later, but prior to Jeremiah. He admits that prophecy influenced the language, eschatological outlook and spirituality of the Psalms, but claims that this influence was exerted before as well as after the exile. He argues that the existence of similar compositions in Babylonia and Egypt at a much earlier date confirms the intrinsic evidence that "Psalm composition belongs to the earliest periods of Israel's history." Mowinckel, whilst recognizing and using the classification of psalms by their type, throws his emphasis on their cultic character, and indeed barely admits the existence of any psalms not cultic in origin (his exceptions are i., cxii., cxxvii.). The psalms were composed by the temple-singers, whom he regards as existing from the early days of the temple. The class of psalms to which he gives primary attention is that containing references to the enthronement of Yahweh as king (xlvii., xciii., xcv.–c., with which many others are to be linked). These he connects with an alleged festival of the New Year (originally beginning in the autumn), a festival after the analogy of that celebrated at Babylon in honour of Marduk. The cultic acts of this festival (e.g., the procession bringing the ark into the temple) were realistically conceived, i e., they were supposed to help in bring ing about that which they "dramatized." Thus they anticipated the future (eschatology) while recalling the past (mythology). There is a similar "realism" in Mowinckel's interpretation of the numerous petitionary psalms, which are held to attribute mis fortune and sickness to magicians and sorcerers, who are the original "workers of iniquity" so frequently mentioned. Such psalms were employed, with suitable accompanying rites, as part of the temple-cult ; they counteracted adverse magic by exorcisms and imprecations of these "enemies." There were prophets as well as priests, or priest-prophets, attached to the temple, who gave oracles; thus the petition of Ps. lxxxv. 5-7 is answered by the oracle of vv. 8-13. It should be said that a "cultic" inter pretation of the psalms as a whole has been independently urged by other scholars, e.g., by J. P. Peters, who further conjectures that the "Elohistic" psalms belonged to northern temples (cf. the northern "Elohistic" saga-writers), the Korahite to Dan, the Asaphite to Bethel, and were afterwards incorporated in the liturgy of Jerusalem.