APPENDIX II. THE LINGUISTIC AFFINITIES OF THE PSALMS. There is no more delicate problem than to select linguistic evidences of the date of a Biblical Hebrew document. Much has been done of late years in this department for the Pentateuch, and a beginning has been made in the critico-linguistic study of some of the prophets. In Job and the Psalms somewhat less interest has as yet been shown, though Budde has given us a careful study of the Elihu speeches,' and Giesebrecht a suggestive but too undiscriminating collection of the linguistic evidence for a late date of the Psalms. It is not likely that in an appendix I should do justice to so difficult a subject, or escape making some statements for which scholars will desiderate ampler proof. The reader will see however that what I offer is my own, and that I have written these pages under a sense of the occasional uncertainty of the evidence. I do not myself think that in the case of the Psalms the linguistic argument can be often more than a subsidiary one, and shall be satisfied (though I hope in some cases to have attained more positive results) if I have shown that from the point of view of language no decisive objection can be raised to conclusions based for the most part upon other grounds. The few remarks which follow are intended to forestall criticism or at least to prevent misunderstanding. First, I feel bound to take for granted the same critical results which are presupposed in the preceding lectures and notes. It cannot, in my opinion, be proved that good Hebrew ceased to be written either at the return from Babylon or in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. But I cast no reflexion on those who may think otherwise, and who study the Hebrew texts from a more conserva 1 Beiträge zur Kritik des Buches Hiob (1876), zweiter Theil. 26 Ueber die Abfassungszeit der Psalmen; 1. Buch ii.-v.' in Zeitschr. f. d. alttest. Wissenschaft, 1881, pp. 276-332. See Driver's art., 'On some alleged linguistic affinities of the Elohist,' Journal of Philology, xi. 233, and cf. Kuenen, Hexateuch (by Wicksteed), p. 291. Prof. Driver does not assert that the linguistic affinities of 'P.C.' (or the Psalter) are incompatible with a date 'in or near' the Exile, but wishes for a more discriminating collection of evidence. As for myself, I have never dreamed that language would settle critical problems. tively critical point of view. I will not presume to say that there is but one justifiable method in this or any other branch of Old Testament criticism. I am sure that I could profit much from a similar collection of evidence by Delitzsch or Strack, and I encourage myself with the thought that a scholar like Strack will find some suggestiveness in my own imperfect work. Secondly, let me warn the reader that I rely upon his constant and critical attention. Many necessary or probable inferences I have been compelled from want of space to omit. May I add that the student will be well advised to take the psalms in groups, and work his way backward, as has been done in the lectures? I may perhaps be asked why I have not pursued this method here. The reason is partly that I wished to save space, and partly that it seemed worth while to show that even the psalms most confidently believed to be pre-Exilic present some linguistic phenomena difficult to reconcile with that belief. And next, let me beg the reader to remember the frequent uncertainty of the text. I have several times referred to the possibility of corruption, and repudiated a seeming Aramaism as not in the intention of the writer. If I have not often enough said 'probably' or 'possibly,' let the reader supply this omission. Lastly, a brief answer may be given to the question why some psalms, alleged to be post-Exilic, have so much more literary merit than others. The first point to emphasize is that the circumstances of the nation varied greatly at different points of the long period between the return from exile and the Maccabees. It was always possible indeed to write psalms in a fairly pure Hebrew style, but not always to command spontaneity and vigour. True poets are never numerous, and even these must be depressed by unfavourable circumstances. The next point is, that among the templesingers analogy requires us to assume different poetical schools. Hymn-writers had to consider both art and popularity; some writers put a higher value on the one and some on the other. There were those who coveted the prize of writing in a style which David might not have disowned, and who therefore cultivated pregnancy and condensation, and interspersed with strict moderation a few archaic forms. There were others in whom a true and deep religious feeling was much in excess of stylistic dexterity. The psalms of the first two books contain most of the best work of the former class, whereas in parts of Books IV. and V. we are conscious that, as Ewald long ago remarked, an 'invasion of popular speech' has impaired the purity of the idiom. How then can we be surprised 1 Cf. Wellhausen, Prolegomena, German ed., p. 414. that some psalmists have a much choicer style than others? In the Wisdom-literature there are similar phenomena; contrast the roughness of Koheleth with the comparative elegance of the proverbs of Ben Sira and the masterly genius revealed in Job. And even within the same book, Job for instance or Koheleth, can we not detect differences in the degree of polish? But great as is the variety of style among the psalmists, there is one characteristic which is common to all-a self-abnegation which delights, wherever possible, to adapt the ideas and phraseology of predecessors. If it be strange that the Elohistic writer of Gen. i. should have written in so pure and classical a style, it is at any rate not strange that psalmists, trained up in the traditional processes of hymn-writing, should have composed in a Hebrew which to the uncritical eye passes as that of David. The conservatism of the temple poets was of course not less than that of the priestly legislators, allowing for the difference of their functions; of them both in their various degrees it may be said that they came not to be ministered unto but to minister.' Ps. ii. Post-Davidic, because of (v. 2), which belongs to the prophetic literature; and, if the Aramaic 2 (v. 12) be genuine, post-Exile (see Prov. xxxi. 2, which is post-Exile). I confess, however, that the correction adopted in note, p. 340 appears to me certain; Sept. and Targ. give evidence in its favour, and sense and rhythm are both helped by it. Similarly the Aramaic verb yy (see Lagarde, Semitica, i. 22 ff.) may be safely expelled from v. 9a; read Dyn, with Sept. (Pesh. Vulg.) and render, 'Thou mayest shepherd them with a staff of iron' (cf. Mic. v. 6a). There still remains the Aramaizing in v. 1. The noun (masc. and fem.) occurs in lv. 15, lxiv. 3; the verb nowhere else. Aram. n, Dan. vi. 7, 12, 16. and its forms, in the Targums on the prophets and on the Psalms, answers to various Hebrew words, e.g. to non in xlvi. 4 and lxxxiii. 3, and to wy in lxviii. 8. May we set against this Aramaism the suffixes of 3 pers. plur. in 1 (vv. 3-5, cf. lviii. 7, 8, lix. 12, 13, lxxxiii. 12), which are undoubtedly primitive in type (Olshausen, Lehrbuch, § 96a; Gesenius-Kautzsch, § 32, 7), and which Dillmann mentions among the tokens of a high (pre-Davidic) antiquity in Ex. xv. 1-18? Not except under the strict compulsion of internal evidence. These suffixes may be merely employed for rhythmical effect; they are not employed throughout the psalm. Cf. on xi. 7. 1 Budde, Beiträge, pp. 158, 159; Cheyne, Job and Solomon, pp. 203-206. 2 Driver, Journal of Philology, xi. 232. It must be remembered that similar difficulties have been felt in admitting the Exilic date of the Second Isaiah. It takes time to familiarize oneself with facts. It is not enough to admit a critical result; you must absorb it. Ps. iii. 3 and other passages (see Gesenius-Kautzsch, § 90, 2, note b). The term лn is not quoted by Dillmann as proving the early date of Ex. xv. 16; nor does it prove anything in the Psalter. Ps. v. 2. or . Again in xxxix. 4; nowhere else. Is this an Aramaism? Certainly a root h'gag exists, by the side of h'go, in (Eastern) Aramaic, but if the Aramaic usage in the post-Exile period was the same as in Christian times, the special sense of h'gag was 'to imagine,' or even 'to see an imaginary form,' and that of h'go 'to spell, read' (cf. Jewish Aram. &, new Heb. n). Had the psalmist no Sprachgefühl, no sense of difference of usage? in the sense of 'vain appearance,' would be in place in Ps. xc. 9 (nn), but not here. There were therefore probably two Heb. stems and an (see on xix. 13). Cf. on xlix. 2.— connects this with several other psalms related as to п and II. The archaistic suffix in (see on ii. 3-5, xi. 7). Ps. vii. is one of the Elyōn psalms (see v. 18), and is therefore presumably late (see note ", p. 83). Once for all, we may draw the same inference for Pss. ix., xviii., xxi., xlvi., xlvii., 1., lvii., lxxiii., lxxvii., lxxviii., lxxxii., lxxxviii. (?),lxxxix. (allusion), xci., xcii., xcvii., cvii In v. 10, to come to an end' (also, twice, 'to complete '), is clearly a word of the silver age. In the Bible it only occurs in Ps. vii. 10, xii. 2, lvii. 3 (if the text be correct), lxxvii. 9, cxxxviii. 8 ; in the Targums and the Talmud it is of frequent occurrence (also in Syriac, as an intransitive). In v. 5 the Aramaizing ↳ should give place to pn (see crit. n.). Ps. viii. 5, ix. 3. 20, 21, x. 18, lvi. 2, lxvi. 12, xc. 3 (?), ciii. 15, cxliv here 'frail (or weak) man;' so only in Job, Psalms, 2 Isa. (li. 7, 12), 2 Chron. (xiv. 10). Dillmann and Delitzsch would thus interpret Enos (Enosh) in Gen. iv. 26 (Yahvistic), but this name is really only a duplicate of Adam, as Kenan is of Kain; why suppose a Nebenbegriff'? 'Man' or 'ordinary men' is the meaning of ' in Isa. (viii. 1, xxxiii. 8), Jer. (xx. 10), Deut. (xxxii. 26), and is presupposed by the Yahvist in Gen. 7. c. But it is also not unrepresented in Job (e.g. xxviii. 13), Psalms (see parts of Isa. (xiii. 7, 12, xxiv. 6, lvi. 2). confirm the late origin of Ps. viii., &c. of weakness in Isaiah's time, would he in Is. ii. 9, 11, v. 15? in. = on lv. 14), and the later These facts on the whole Had ' conveyed the idea not have used it instead of Also Prov. xxix. 13 (plur.). Heb. v, 1. fine; 2. punish Ps. x. 7, lv. 12, lxxii. 14, n or A late word. In Jewish Aram. Na ment (see the verb in Prov. xvii. 26, xxi. 11). In eastern Aramaic tuko has, like y, an expanded meaning (oppression'); it is the rendering of n in Pesh. Ps. xi. The form (with absorbed or ) occurs only in Ps. xi. 6, xvi. 5, lxiii. 11, 2 Chron. xxxi. 3, 4, Neh. xii. 44, 47, xiii. 10. Similarly the form ny? (with absorbed 1) is found only in Ex. xxxvii. 8 (kt.), xxxviii. 5, xxxix. 4 (kt.), Dan. (repeatedly, both Heb. and Aram.), Neh. vii. 20, and Ps. lxv. 9. (The first three examples give the plural.) If for other reasons the late date of the psalms referred to and of Ex. xxxv.-xl. (in its present form) is probable, the occurrence of these forms will in a slight degree confirm it. The favourite early forms are л, п. The fact that the latter (with its plur. nisp) occurs repeatedly in Ex. xxv.-xxix., xxxv.-xl. is no argument against the view here taken. In xi. 7 we find the suffix 1 of the 3rd pers. sing., as in Job xx. 23, xxvii. 23, xxii. 2, Isa. xliv. 15, liii. 8. All late passages. Cf. on ii. 3-5. Ps. xii. (v. 2) and n (v. 9) belong to the Aramaizing period (see above, on vii. 10, and crit. n. on xii. 9). In v. 8 has the (probably) late meaning of 'class of men,' as xiv. 5, xxiv. 6, lxxiii. 15, cxii. 2, Deut. xxxii. 5, Prov. xxx. 11-14. (for) is only strange because without an article, in spite of in (see Ewald, § 293a). Rhythm will account for this, just as the pause accounts for the old term. in v. 9a (cf. Isa. xxvi. 11). In v. 9, ♫ (Baer, nbt), note the abstract term. Л, and comp. Talmudic nbt (crit. n.). Ps. xiii. 6, with by (for ), Aramaizing. So ciii. 10, cxvi. 7, cxix. 17, cxlii. 8, Joel iv. 4, 2 Chron. xx. II. All post-Exile passages. That has not always the same shade of meaning, does not diminish the value of the observation (see my Comm. on Ps. xiii. 6). Not that Ps. vii. 5, cxxxvii. 8, in which different constructions are found, are on this account alone earlier than Ps. xiii. 6, &c. Comp. on lvii. 3. Ps. xvi. Davidic, says Delitzsch, because of its archaic, peculiar, and highly poetic phraseology. But let us examine the evidence. 1. If this means 'the Lord' (absolutely), as Del. assumes, the psalm is post-Davidic, if not post-Exile. I prefer 'my Lord,' which is more natural in an appeal for help (cf. xxxi. 15, xci. 2); the suffix has its full force as in xxxv. 23, and prob. elsewhere, see p. 299.—3a. All Ewald's instances of quod attinet ad' (Lehrbuch der hebr. Spr., §310a) are from prose-passages, except Ps. xvi. 3, xvii. 4, and one may fairly add Isa. xxxii. 1. But the third of these is undoubtedly and the second not improbably corrupt. 2 at any rate is superfluous in a relative clause. The text as it stands is therefore neither of the golden nor of the silver age of Hebrew. The two admis sible emendations (see my own commentary and Nowack's) both involve placing this psalm in the post-Exile period.-5. n. See on xi. 6. Tin is an impossible form, which Del. should not have H H |