In Vital Issues in the Inerrancy Debate, Phil Fernandes challenged evangelical scholars and apologists to consider the following question: “How early could the four Gospels have been written?”1 In A Trustworthy Gospel and on this website, I have aspired to address this question with respect to Matthew and Mark.
In this present article, I would like to pursue a similar thought experiment with respect to the book of Psalms. What is the earliest date that can be argued for the last psalm(s) to have been written? More simply stated: when was the last psalm written? The organization of the psalms into their present five book arrangement could potentially have occurred not long afterwards; however, I do not want to get tangled up today on the question of when the collection of psalms was ultimately published in their present form. For this article, the thought experiment will proceed as follows: we will (1) tentatively acknowledge the titles as inspired (inerrant) Scripture; (2) explore some of the implications of such; (3) reflect on the political and military situation during the reigns of David, Solomon, and Rehoboam; and finally, (4) make a case that the psalms which are most commonly claimed as exilic (written while Israel was in exile in Babylon) or post-exilic could instead have been authored during the reign of these first three kings of the Davidic dynasty.
For reference, the psalms of primary interest for this article, as being identified by modern scholars as most definitively exilic or post-exilic, include Psalm 74, 79, 126, and 137.2 These will be addressed below.
The Titles
How much credence should be given to the psalm titles? Are we to treat them as Scripture or not? For now, I’ve resolved to treat the titles that derive from the Masoretic text (MT) of the Old Testament as inspired, and therefore inerrant, Scripture. Four factors lead me to this proposition. First, the New Testament repeatedly treats the authorship attributions, as found in the titles, as authoritative. I am presently aware of seven psalms that the NT attributes as being from David (Psa. 2, 16, 32, 69, 95, 109, and 110); all of these have titles attributing them to David, except that two have no title (Psa. 2 and 95).3 Second, the editorial comment at the end of Psalm 72 (which is itself titled as a psalm Of Solomon) states that “The prayers of David, the son of Jesse, are ended” (Psa. 72:20), suggesting that the editor recognized the Davidic authorship attested by the majority of the titles in books one (Psa. 1–41) and two (Psa. 42–72). Further, the close similarity between David’s song in 1 Samuel 22 and the contents of Psalm 18 supports Psalm 18’s attribution to David, per the title. Third, the frequent inclusion of attributions before the songs, psalms, and the like within the narratives portions of the OT, which identify not only authorship but also circumstance, suggests that attributions for these kinds of writings were both common and felt to be important.4 Fourth, the titles themselves appear to be ancient, substantially predating the Septuagint, such that the meaning of various words were no longer known by the translators of the Septuagint.5
Implication of Accepting the Titles
If the titles are accepted, then what can we learn from the circumstances reported by the titles and what are we to do with the purported authorship statements within the titles?
Historical circumstances in the titles
Fourteen of the psalms are tied to a historical event within the life of David. That is, if we accept that Psalm 30 is referring to the dedication of David’s palace (house), rather than to the dedication of the temple (house) as some suppose.6 The descriptive material found in the titles is significant. For, if not for the titles, there would be little to nothing to tie many of these psalms to the corresponding events in the narrative books (e.g., 2 Samuel). Of particular interest to our present thought experiment is the title of Psalm 60:
TO THE CHOIRMASTER: ACCORDING TO SHUSHAN EDUTH. A MIKTAM OF DAVID; FOR INSTRUCTION; WHEN HE STROVE WITH ARAM-NAHARAIM AND WITH ARAM-ZOBAH, AND WHEN JOAB ON HIS RETURN STRUCK DOWN TWELVE THOUSAND OF EDOM IN THE VALLEY OF SALT. (ESV)
The corresponding narratives in 2 Samuel 8 and 10 (and in 1 Chr. 18), which discuss these conflicts, simply announce that David defeated these enemies and that “the LORD gave victory to David wherever he went” (2 Sam. 8:6). The narratives presents the outcomes as almost predetermined, despite the magnitude of the respective armies. And yet, the account in Psalm 60 is far less positive and assured.
O God, you have rejected us, broken our defenses; you have been angry; oh, restore us. You have made the land to quake; you have torn it open; repair its breaches, for it totters … God has spoken in his holiness … “Judah is my scepter. Moab is my washbasin; upon Edom I cast my shoe; over Philistia I shout in triumph.” Who will bring me to the fortified city? Who will lead me to Edom? Have you rejected us, O God? You do not go forth, O God, with our armies (Psa. 60:1–10).
Evidently, the battles did not always go as well as the narratives in 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles convey. There were broken defenses, with Israelites wounded, captured, and dead. There was divine rejection. Not only was David contending in the north, against the king of Zobah and others, but there were also major battles in the south with Edom. Indeed, the war with Edom was evidently particularly brutal, as David ultimately had every male slaughtered (1 Kings 11:15–16). Nonetheless, one of the royals escaped—Hadad fled as a child to Egypt, where he was welcomed and ultimately married the sister of Pharoah’s wife (1 Kings 11:14–19). After David’s death and Solomon’s unfaithfulness to the Lord, Hadad would return and lead Edom to revolt. These insights will be pivotal to our present thought experiment.
Authorship statements within the titles
Scholars frequently point out that the Hebrew lamed preposition—which is used in the titles with named individuals and typically translated as “Of David,” “Of Asaph,” etc.—has a range of meanings including “‘to,’ ‘by,’ or ‘of.'”7 For example, the lamed preposition is also used to indicate that many of the psalms are dedicated “To the choirmaster.” Accordingly, scholars often argue that the supposed authorial attributions (e.g., “Of David”) would be better understood as dedicatory statements, along the lines of “dedicated to David.”8 Perhaps they are right, but I suggest that the recognition of Davidic authorship of several of the psalms, as found in both the OT and NT, tends to weigh against this approach.9
Can the supposed authorial statements be reconciled or harmonized with the historical settings implied by the psalms themselves? Here’s my thinking. Other than Psalm 60, the psalms attributed to David all align well with what we know of David from the narrative accounts. While Psalm 60 goes beyond what we know from the narrative accounts for the corresponding conflicts, the events and sentiments are not unreasonable. Therefore, there is little reason to deny that the psalms “Of David” were indeed written by David. Similarly, there is little reason to deny that the psalms “Of Moses” (Psa. 90) or “Of Solomon” (Psa. 72 and 127) were indeed authored by Moses and Solomon, given the content of their psalms. Indeed, even the psalms “Of Asaph,” “Of the Sons of Korah,” and “Of Ethan the Ezrahite” can be accepted as authored by those whom David chartered as his musicians, if we accept that (1) the most dire events described in their psalms reflect the defeat of Judah by Egypt during the time of Rehoboam; and (2) recognize that David’s musical appointments included not only Asaph, Heman, and Ethan per 1 Chronicles 6:31–47, but also the “sons of Asaph, and of Heman, and of Jeduthun [Ethan]” per 1 Chronicles 25:1–2.10 Hence, I allow that “Of Asaph” is inclusive of the sons “Of Asaph.”
The political and military situation during the reigns of David, Solomon, and Rehoboam
According to Psalm 60, David was concerned that the Lord was not going out to battle with the army, that defenses were being overrun, and that the people were seeing “hard things” (Psa. 60:1–3, 10). This suggests that they were experiencing losses and defeats, loss of life, prisoners captured, etc. Ultimately the Lord gave victory and David reigned securely from Jerusalem, but there were challenges along the way.
Then we have Solomon, with whom the Lord was angry due to his unfaithfulness. The Lord raised up adversaries—Hadad and the Edomites, Rezon and the Syrians, and Jeroboam, who eventually fled to Egypt, to be harbored by Shishak king of Egypt until the death of Solomon (1 Kings 11).
Then, “in the fifth year of King Rehoboam, Shishak king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem. He took away the treasures of the house of the Lord and the treasures of the king’s house” (1 Kings 14:25–26). Shishak took the fortified cities and Judah became his vassal (2 Chr. 12:4, 8). Hence, Judah’s armies were defeated and Jerusalem was overthrown, roughly forty-five years after the death of David.
Against this backdrop of the Egyptian invasion, it is easy to situate the despairing cry “Of Asaph” (and of his sons) as found in Psalms 74 and 79.
O God, why do you cast us off forever? Why does your anger smoke against the sheep of your pasture? Remember your congregation, which you have purchased of old, which you have redeemed to be the tribe of your heritage! Remember Mount Zion, where you have dwelt. Direct your steps to the perpetual ruins; the enemy has destroyed everything in the sanctuary! Your foes have roared in the midst of your meeting place; they set up their own signs for signs. … They set your sanctuary on fire; they profaned the dwelling place of your name, bringing it down to the ground. They said to themselves, “We will utterly subdue them”; they burned all the meeting places of God in the land.(Psalm 74:1–8 ESV)
O God, the nations have come into your inheritance; they have defiled your holy temple; they have laid Jerusalem in ruins. They have given the bodies of your servants to the birds of the heavens for food, the flesh of your faithful to the beasts of the earth. They have poured out their blood like water all around Jerusalem, and there was no one to bury them. We have become a taunt to our neighbors, mocked and derided by those around us. How long, O LORD? Will you be angry forever? Will your jealousy burn like fire? … Let the groans of the prisoners come before you; according to your great power, preserve those doomed to die! (Psalm 79:1–11 ESV)
Key psalms which are often claimed as being exilic or post-exilic
Aside from Psalm 74 and 79, there are two other psalms which are most frequently flagged as internally demonstrating that they were written within an exilic or post-exilic time frame. Neither of these have titles which identify authors or circumstances.
Psalm 126 is flagged by many scholars as being exilic or post-exilic.11 This psalm reflects on a time when the Lord previously “restored the fortunes of Zion” and pleads with the Lord to again “Restore our fortunes.” I contend that these sentiments apply through most of Israel’s history and need not suggest that it was written during the exilic or post-exilic time frame. For example, in Psalm 90 Moses cries out, “Return, O Lord! How long? Have pity on your servants!” (Psa. 90:13). Likewise, during the time of the judges, Israel experienced repeated cycles of desperation and restoration.
Psalm 137 is also generally flagged as exilic or post-exilic.12 Of all the psalms, I grant this one as best favoring a later date, given the references to Babylon; however, since it appears to stand alone as potentially demanding a late date, it must be examined critically. The psalm begins by recalling that “By the waters of Babylon, there we sat down and wept, when we remembered Zion … our captors required of us … songs of Zion” (Psa. 137:1–3). It later goes on to weep, “If I forget you, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget its skill!” (137:5) and then calls on the Lord: “Remember, O Lord, against the Edomites the day of Jerusalem,” as the Edomites wanted to see Jerusalem torn down to its foundations (137:7). This imprecatory psalm finishes by invoking a curse against Babylon (137:8). Except for the reference to slavery in Babylon and the closing curse against Babylon, this psalm could certainly fit into the context of Shishak’s defeat of Judah and sacking of Jerusalem. If this was indeed the circumstance out of which the psalm was written, then how did the captives land in Babylon? Perhaps they were sold into slavery by Edom following the Egyptian conquest? This is purely speculative, but I suggest that it offers a better approach than allowing a couple verses out of one psalm—one psalm out of one hundred and fifty psalms—to shift the publication date of this psalm and several related psalms, along with the book of Psalms itself, by several centuries.
Summary
Per our thought experiment, there is a reasonable case to be made that the latest psalm in Psalms was published late in the 10th century BC, shortly after Shishak of Egypt sacked Jerusalem. This runs contrary to contemporary scholarship, which dates the last psalm to the sixth century or later. What difference would acceptance of my proposition make? For one, we would realize that we have in-hand a fuller view of the world of the early Davidic dynasty, as portrayed through the psalms—including the songs of ascent in book five—than is commonly recognized. Correspondingly, when preaching the narratives, we should leverage the pertinent psalms. Further, new intertextual relationships and insights may be recognized, if it is allowed that OT prophets might have drawn from these psalms. Also, from a modern theological perspective, acceptance that the psalms were no later than the tenth century would reduce the legitimacy of modern books which aspire to recast Psalms as being all about Jesus, such as Richard Belcher’s The Messiah and the Psalms: Preaching Christ from All the Psalms.13 Granted, the psalms reveal much about the future messianic role of Jesus, but there is so much more there.
But again, this has merely been a thought experiment. Let us continue to dwell on whether this approach is justified. Perhaps there are solid reasons out there that would lead us to affirm or reject this theory. Regardless, I believe that it is healthy to periodically reassess the settled findings of contemporary (settled) biblical scholarship. Comments are most welcome!
- Phil Fernandes, “Redating the Gospels,” in Vital Issues in the Inerrancy Debate, ed. F. David Farnell (Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock, 2015), 488. ↩︎
- The following survey offers a sampling of views concerning the dating of the latter Psalms. Longman identifies Psalm 137 as exilic and 126 as post-exilic based on their contents, while identifying the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem as being in the background of Psalms 74 and 79. Other psalms which might have been composed during or after the exile include Psalm 13, 85, 102, 106, 107, and 147. Tremper Longman III, Psalms: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Nottingham, England: InterVarsity, 2014), 32, 85, 96, 278, 294, 312, 368, 376, 471. Kidner’s earlier edition of the TOTC volume on Psalms seems less willing to definitively situate psalms in the exile or later, but he does tie Psalm 74, 79, and 137 to the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem. Derek Kidner, Psalms 73–150: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1975), 74, 293, 495. Belcher’s Messiah and the Psalms does not address all of the psalms, but he does offer that “Psalm 79 is a community lament responding to a disaster that has occurred in Jerusalem, probably in connection to the destruction of the temple and the city by the Babylonians in 587 BC.” Likewise, with Psalm 137. Richard P. Belcher Jr., The Messiah and the Psalms: Preaching Christ from All the Psalms (Ross-shire, Scotland: Mentor, 2006), 69, 76. Leupold positions Psalm 74, 79, 126, and 136 as being written during or following the exile, along with Psalm 85, 95, 102, etc. He also places Psalm 87 during the time of Hezekiah because of the mention of Babylon. However, I contend that this dating is not necessitated as the psalm is merely trying to illustrate the wide reputation of Zion. H. C. Leupold, Exposition of the Psalms (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1959), 533, 573, 609, 622, 675, 707, 887, 933. It is recognized that some scholars have previously argued that some of the psalms may date from the Maccabean period. ↩︎
- Davidic authorship is claimed for (1) Psalm 2:1–2 by Acts 4:25–26; (2) Psa. 16:8–11 by Acts 2:25–28; (3) Psa. 32:1–2 by Rom. 4:7–8; (4) Psa. 69:22–23 by Rom. 11:9 and Psa. 69:25 by Acts 1:16–20; (5) Psa. 95:7–11 by Heb. 3:7–4:7; (6) Psa. 109:8 by Acts 1:16–20; (7) Psa. 110:1 by Mark 12:36; etc. ↩︎
- Attributions are identified for the songs/psalms/prayers in Deuteronomy 31:22 (Moses); Judges 5:1 (Deborah and Barak); 2 Samuel 1:17–18 (David); 2 Samuel 23:1 (David); Isaiah 38:9 (Hezekiah); Habakkuk 3:1 (Habakkuk). ↩︎
- Mark D. Futato, Interpreting the Psalms: An Exegetical Handbook (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2007), 119–20. ↩︎
- The pertinent psalms are Psalm 3, 7, 18, 30, 34, 51, 52, 54, 56, 57, 59, 60, 63, and 142. ↩︎
- C. Hassell Bullock, Encountering the Book of Psalms: A Literary and Theological Introduction, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2018), 7. ↩︎
- Ibid. ↩︎
- While recognizing that lamed has a variety of meanings, Kidner declares that “there can be little doubt” that in the context of the titles, its use in the titles with ut has the genitive sense, and is a genitive of authorship.” Derek Kidner, Psalms 1–72: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 15, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1973), 48. ↩︎
- Futato accepts that the “description of devastation” found in Ethan’s Psalm 89:39–45 “could easily fit into the reign of his [Solomon’s] son, Rehoboam, into whose reign Ethan could very well have lived. In the fifth year of Rehoboam’s reign, Shishak king of Egypt attacked Jerusalem and plundered the temple and the royal palace.” God had indeed cast the throne of the anointed king to the ground. Futato, Interpreting the Psalms, 124. ↩︎
- See note 2 above. ↩︎
- See note 2 above. ↩︎
- Richard P. Belcher Jr., The Messiah and the Psalms: Preaching Christ from All the Psalms (Ross-shire, Scotland: Mentor, 2006). ↩︎
NOTE: Comments and dialog are welcome. The “Leave a Reply” field will be accessible below for 10 days after this post was published. Afterwards, please feel free to continue to comment via the contact page. (This is my attempt to manage the spam bots.)
