It will be seen, therefore, that there is considerable division of opinion at the present time in regard to our first question, the cultic element in the Psalter, Mowinckel regarding practically the whole Psalter as cultic in origin, whilst Gunkel regards the majority of the psalms as of private and occasional origin, though subsequently introduced into the cult. On this point Gunkel's view seems more convincing, from the intrinsic evidence and from the general probabilities. Like a modern hymn-book, the Psalter seems to contain many poems not originally intended for use in worship, but subsequently adapted to it—indeed, the religious wealth of the Psalter seems largely due to this variety of origin. On the other hand, Mowinckel does make a strong case for the special interpretation of the psalms of the enthronement of Yahweh, even though he brings far too many under this head. His explanation of the "eschatological" features is also attractive; less so seems his too sweeping connection of sickness and mis fortune with magic, though there is probably an element of real truth in his contentions (the tendency of those who discover some neglected truth is to generalize to excess on the basis of it). In a collection so extensive and varied as the Psalter we need not regard any one explanation or theory as necessarily applicable to more than a part of the material. Variety of origin almost follows from variety of date, and their issue is most naturally variety of meaning, even where the same conventional phrases may be used.
In regard to the closely linked question as to the collective or individual interpretation of the speaker in the psalms, Gunkel follows Balla in reaction from the view that was general a quarter of a century ago (e.g., Smend, Cheyne), i.e., that the "I" of the Psalms is collective, personifying the nation. Mowinckel agrees with Gunkel so far as the "individual laments" are concerned, but recognizes a primitive "corporate personality" finding utterance through the leader or king as its representative. We may ask whether this principle does not admit of a wider application than even Mowinckel allows. It seems to go a long way towards explaining the puzzling combination of "collective" and "indi vidual" elements in such a psalm as the xxii., and the rapid transitions so often found (c f . xliv. 5-7 and 14, 15). The same phenomena occur in relation to the Servant of Yahweh in Deutero–Isaiah, and admit of the same explanation—that the primitive mind draws no such hard and fast limits between the individual and the community as we do (see The Cross of the Servant, by H. Wheeler Robinson, pp. 32-36; The Psalm ists, ed. D. C. Simpson, pp. 82 seq.). We may often find it im possible to decide whether a psalm is collective or individual— because the ancient category was neither one nor the other, but a third category including both.
In regard to dating the composition of individual psalms, there seems to be some danger of a similar excessive reaction from the view associated with the name of Wellhausen, open as that is to criticism. The arguments of Gunkel and Mowinckel, amongst
others, do show in their different ways that psalms were com posed in the pre-exilic period, a fact which has been too grudg ingly admitted. The intrinsic evidence of some of the psalms, such as the reference to a human king, or the processional features of the second part of xxiv. ("Lift up your heads, 0 ye gates"), or the primitive cosmology of the first part of xix., confirms the probability that some of these pre-exilic produc tions would survive in a post-exilic Psalter. So long as we are thinking of the origin and original meaning of a particular psalm, we must always be prepared to admit that it may go back to a relatively early date, however much modified in its present adap tation to the needs of the second temple. On the other hand, we use any psalm in its present form as an early document only at considerable risk; we may conjecture, but we cannot prove. The main reasons for regarding the contents of the Psalter as largely post-exilic remain unaffected by recent criticism, i.e., those that spring from the general relation of the religion of the psalms to the prophetic religion. If with Gunkel we regard the majority of the psalms as the expression of individual piety, we have to ask whether such wide-spread piety is conceivable before the work of the great prophets. The psalms represent a partial ful filment of the prophecy of the New Covenant made by Jeremiah; is it likely that they preceded it? We cannot reasonably doubt that the prophets of the 8th and 7th centuries were pioneers, and that they taught truths that were new to their contemporaries, even though they may have used forms of expression and even of thought which were more or less conventional. Nor can there be any doubt that the religion of the Psalter as a whole is closely re lated to the prophetic teaching. We seem to have parallel phenom ena in the formulation of Israel's laws (Deuteronomy, the Law of Holiness, the Priestly Code) and in the Wisdom Literature; in all three cases ancient elements are given a new setting, but the new setting gives them a new meaning. Laws, proverbs and psalms are alike reinterpreted and restated in the light of the prophetic teaching, which had certainly taken time to permeate the nation's religion. Nothing has come to us through the editorial sieve that could not be given a plausibly orthodox meaning ac cording to post-exilic standards. Thus the psalms as a whole must still be treated as a post-exilic book. This might be con firmed by the subtler test of psychological usage, hardly to be simulated ; the word "spirit," for example, is used of man in the psalms with psychical predicates in a way not found elsewhere in the pre-exilic literature of the Old Testament.