Psalms of Solomon

Historical printed page 628

INTRODUCTION means of the style and affinities of the Greek in which it is written. From the Greek style and the relation of Pss. of Sol. xi to the Greek of Baruch iv. 36-v. 9 Ryle and James (pp. Ixxii ff.) have argued that the Psalms of Solomon had been turned into Greek before A.D. 70. In so far as this argument turns on the assumption that Baruch iv. 36—v. 9 was originally written in Greek and is not a translation from the Hebrew, it may require reconsideration : for, to mention but a single point, in Baruch v. 6 αἰρομένους . . ὡς θρόνον seems to be due to a thoughtless disregard of a well-known use of the Hebrew particle 51 (BDB. 458 a): the sense requires borne as on a throne; this the Hebrew ND22 would admit, but the Greek yields only the unsuitable meaning dorne as a throne. However, the affinities of the Greek have convinced Viteau (pp. 140 ff.) who rejects, as well as Ryle and James who accept, the dependence of Baruch iv. 36—v.y on Pss. of Sol. xi, that the translation was made prior to A.D. 70. But the main argument for the date of the Psalms must be based on the subject-matter of these. Now the state of society reflected in these Psalms and the ideas that dominate them are entirely compatible with all that is known of the middle of the first century B.C., while the definite historical allusions, if these are rightly explained of Pompey’s actions in Palestine and his death in Egypt (48 B.C.), show that it is the middle of the first century B.C., and not any other period at which the state of society and the ruling ideas may have been similar, that is the actual age in which the Psalms of Solomon were written. Not all the Psalms taken separately, it is true, point with equal clearness to the circumstances under, or the age in, which they arose: but there is a general similarity of tone and character about them which, failing direct evidence to the contrary, justifies the generally accepted theory that they are the work, if not of a single hand, yet of a single generation. These Psalms are the work of a writer or writers who, in common with the authors of many of the canonical Psalms, held firmly by the belief in the relative righteousness of Israel as compared with the nations of the world ; alien nations are as such ‘sinners’ (i. I, ii. 1 f., 24 ff.) Yet actually Israel is not righteous as it should be, and as it had thought itself (e.g. i. 2 ἢ), On the other hand, there is within Israel a class, a dominating class so influential and powerful as to give in some measure its character to the entire people (cp. e.g. i. 4, xvii. 22), of ‘sinners’, Thus throughout the Psalms Israel appears divided into sections or parties; the one section, or party, consists of the righteous,” or pious, or those that fear the Lord,* or the poor,’ or the guileless ;® the other section consists of the unrighteous,’ or sinners,’ or transgressors,’ or profane,!” or, as they are termed in the fourth Psalm, the men-pleasers (ἀνθρωπάρεσκοι). In this division of the people into two different parties, regarded as morally or religiously opposed, and even in the use of the terms employed to describe them, the Psalms of Solomon do not differ essentially from a large group of the canonical Psalms. As in those so in these, the writers naturally identify themselves with the section of the righteous or the pious. The more closely we can deter- mine the actual character of the two parties thus described, the more closely shall we be able to determine the nature of the circles from which the Psalms sprang and the conditions under which they were written. In attempting to gather from the Psalms this closer determination of the characteristics of each party it must of course be remembered, and allowed for, that we are dealing with a strongly partisan work. Neither the righteousness of the righteous, nor the sinfulness of the sinful, must be accepted too literally. The ‘sinners’ had recently passed through a period of prosperity, and they had acquired wealth ; but to ease and prosperity had succeeded the distress of war, which, of course, affected the whole nation, ‘sinners’ and ‘righteous’ alike (i), though in some ways more particularly the ‘sinners’; it was members of that party, if not exclusively yet predominantly, who were led away captive by the invaders (ii. 3-15, ix. 3 ff., viii. 24). Prosperity had produced in the ‘sinners’ insolence and self-reliance (i) and disregard of God (iv. 14,24). They are charged, in particular, (1) with gross sensual sins (ii. 13-15, iv. 4 ff, viii. 9 ff., 24), (2) with profanation of the sanctuary, or the sacred objects (i. 8, ii. 3 a, viii. 12, 26), and of the sacrificial 1 Cf. Judges xx. 39, where nondns, ‘as in the war’, is rendered in the LXX καθὼς ὁ πόλεμος. See also my note at end of ὃ 6 in Introd»to 1 Baruch, vol. ii—Gen. Editor. ® δίκαιοι, i.e. DIPS ; see ii. 38, iii. 3-8, 14, iv. 9, x. 3, xiii. 5-8, xiv. 6, xv. 8, xvi. 15. 5. ὅσιοι, i.e. DNDN; see iii. 10, iv. 1, 7, 9, viii. 28, 40, ix. 6, x. 7, xii. 5, 8, xiii. 9, 11, xiv. 2, 7, xv. 9, xvii. 18. * (οἷ) φοβούμενοι (τὸν) κύριον, i.e. “Ὁ NW; see ii. 37, iii. 16, iv. 26 (ct. v. 24), ν. 21, xii, 4, Nili, 11, xv, 15. 5 πτωχοί (Dy?) ; see Vv. 2, 13 (also πένης), X. 7, XV. 2, XViii. 3. δ ἄκακος ; see iv. 25, xii. 4. τ ἄδικοι, i.e. YW; see xii. 6, xv. 6. ® ἁμαρτωλός, i.e. DNON; see ii. 38 f., iii. 11, 13, iv. 9, 27, xii. 8, xv. 9-14, xvii. 6, and elsewhere (cp. xiii). ἢ" παράνομοι, i.e. DYYW'D (Ὁ) ; see iv. 21, xii. 1, 4, xiv. 6. 10 βέβηλος, i.e. ΠΣ); see iv. 1. 628 «τ΄χ-τΌ..:.᾿ πὶ τ σῦν ππυ τὰν τ΄ al een ge