Psalms of Solomon

Historical printed page 627

THE PSALMS OF SOLOMON § 4. THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF THE PSALMS: HEBREW (3). The Hebrew the basis of the following translation. That the Psalms were originally written in Hebrew is now generally admitted: this conclusion was indeed disputed by Hilgenfeld (MJessias Judaeorum, Prolegg. xvi, xvii), but his arguments are criticized by Wellhausen (Die Pharisder τι. die Sadducder (1874) and Ryle and James (p. 1xxxiv. f.). Briefly stated, the argument that the Greek is not the original work, but a translation from an original, and now lost, Hebrew text, is this: Not only (1) does the Greek throughout show many features in common with Greek versions of existing Hebrew originals, but (2) it contains a certain number of strange expressions which are more or less obviously due to blunders in translating from Hebrew. As to (1), which might, if necessary, be largely, though not easily altogether, explained as not due to translation, but as a Hellenistic style specially influenced by the LXX, it must suffice to refer to the illustrations collected by Ryle and James (pp. 1xxx ff.) of peculiar uses of the infin. and the aorist, of prepositions, of the negative od... πᾶς = $3 ,, , xb, of nouns anarthrous because equivalent to Hebrew nouns in the status constructus, of substantives in the genitive used in lieu of adjectives, and many other phenomena. For illustrations of (2) reference may be made to the notes below on ii. 12, 13, 19, 29, ili. 2, 4, v. 15, Vii. 4, viii. 3, ix. 5, xv. 8, xvii. 14, 36. A third line of argument might be urged: in not a few places the Hebrew rhythm can be still heard through the Greek version ; as for example the so-called kizah rhythm (3:2) in Ps. viii. But if the conclusion is right that behind the Greek lies a Hebrew original, the task of transla- tion and interpretation must be constantly governed by it. Passages which might only be translated in one way, and so translated might receive some explanation, if the Greek were original, must often be translated otherwise, if the Hebrew, lying behind the Greek, would admit, or demands, an alterna- tive translation that can receive a more satisfactory explanation. And in every case in which the Greek can only be explained in a strained and artificial manner, it is important to bear in mind the probability that the meaning of the Hebrew may have been different and simpler, even though the exact form and meaning of the Hebrew can no longer be discerned. In the notes that accompany the following translation it has been impossible to draw attention to all such alternatives; and in particular the tenses of the verbs have been represented by an equivalent in English which seemed most likely to express the force of the term in the original Hebrew, but only comparatively seldom have alternative possibilities been suggested. For a future tense the reader can always, if the context seems to him to render it more suitable, substitute a present and often a past. $5. DATE, CHARACTER, AND ORIGIN OF THE PSALMS. The earliest direct testimony to the Psalms of Solomon is in the catalogue at the beginning of the Codex Alexandrinus (A: fifth century A.D.). Here it stands after the final summary of the books of the Old and New Testaments. Other references to the Psalms by name are later: the Pseudo-Athanasian Synopsis Sauctae Scripturae (Ὁ sixth century A.D.) (δ 74) places ψαλμοὶ καὶ φδὴ Σολομῶντος among the antilegomena after Maccabees (four books) and Ptolemaica, and before Susanna; Nicephorus, Patriarch of Con- stantinople (A.D. 806-814), places them between Eccles. and Esther. In the text attached to the Quaestiones et Responsiones of Anastasius Sinaita (c. 640-700) Ψαλμοὶ Σολομῶντος are classed among twenty-five apocryphal books between the Assumption of Moses and the Apocalypse of Elijah, The provision of the fifty-ninth canon of the Council of Laodicea (c. 360 A. D.), ὅτι οὐ δεῖ ἰδιωτικοὺς ψαλμοὺς λέγεσθαι ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ, may be directed against church use of the Psalms of Solomon; but neither this reference nor a similar one in Ambrose, Praef. in Lib. Psalmorum, is free from ambiguity. So also the references in the Pistis Sophia (c. 250 A.D.) and Lactantius (fourth century A.D.) to the Odes of Solomon have a bearing on the date and history of the Psa/ms of Solomon only in so far as it can be shown that these two entirely distinct works were accustomed at an early date to be united as they are in the newly-recovered Syriac MS. On this see Harris, pp. 9 ff. These references are of more importance as casting light on the circulation and position of the Psalms in the early Church than for closely determining the date at which the Psalms were written. For this we must turn to the internal evidence. No argument can be based on language of the lost original, for though the Hebrew text can be to a large extent recovered, it cannot be so re-established in its minutiae as to admit of a linguistic argument of any weight. It is different with the language of the Greek version, and attempts have been made to determine the date of that version, and consequently a terminus ad quem for the original work, by 627 5.8.2