THE DATE OF PSALM XXIV

THE DATE OF PSALM XXIV

Psalm xxiv celebrates God's entrance into his Dwelling-Place, the Temple. Now the Temple was dedicated three times: about 963 B.C. by King Solomon; in 516 by Darius; and in 164 by Judas Maccabeus. We shall try to prove that this third dedication was the occasion of our Psalm. At the same time the traditional view which connects it with King David and the entrance of the Ark into the city of Jerusalem will also be disproved 1). My arguments are the following:
1.The phrase "the hill of the Lord" (Ps. xxiv 3) as a designation for Mount Zion presupposes Josiah's reformation of 621 B.C. (2 Kings xxiii 8). Before that date many hills were sacred to the Lord and the phrase would have been ambiguous 2).
2.Much less could Mount Zion be called "the hill of the Lord" in David's days, before the Ark was placed there.
3.The word "hill" denotes a hill, not a city.
The "ancient doors" (Ps. xxiv 7) cannot be the Temple doors in Solomon's days, because the doors were new then (1 Kings vi 31-35). After the first Temple was burnt down and destroyed in 586 B.C. (2 Kings xxv 9-17), it lay waste for seventy years and had to be rebuilt from the foundations up (Ezra iii 10, v 16, vi 3). Doubtless new doors had to be provided. In Judas' days the Temple had been only partly damaged and had been desecrated for only three years. The ancient doors may have been preserved and used again. Therefore the phrase "ancient doors" appears to suit the time of Judas best. The translation "everlasting doors" is perhaps less plausible. Why should just the doors be called everlasting? In any case, Solomon's doors were made of wood (1 Kings vi 34), a perishable material. Bronze doors might be called everlasting; but it is doubtful whether bronze doors were used before the Hellenistic period, particularly in a poor country such as Judea.
5.Whatever may have been the original meaning of the phrase "Lord of Hosts", here it appears as an equivalent to "Lord mighty in battle" and has a warlike connotation. Now Solomon's reign was peaceful. Under Darius the Jews did not fight in the name of their God and that ancient phrase would not have been appropriate. Judas had fought and won many battles in order to liberate Jerusalem and reconsecrate the Temple. The Maccabean wars were wars of religion and it is natural that a poet should allude to them in a poem for the reconsecration. The pious poet, however, attributes the victory not to Judas' valor, but to the favor of the Lord.
6.The apostrophe to the doors with the invitation to open spontaneously is possibly a reminiscence of callimachus (Hymn to Apollo, 6-7):
autoi nun katocheV?anaklinesqe julawn, autai de klhideV o gar qeoV ouketi makrhn?
Such a reminiscence should not cause amazement. The Hasidim and the Maccabean soldiers were fighting against Greek religious intolerance, not against Greek poetry. In those days many educated persons of the Near East knew some Greek and it is likely that some of those brave warriors, while risking their lives for the defense of the Torah, did not forget the lines of homer and euripides which they had learnt at school. I have found reminiscences of Greek poems in several Jewish works of this period — particularly in Job, Ecclesiastes, and Ben Sirach, and also in the Trito-Isaiah, Enoch, Daniel, and a few Psalms. This rhetorical apostrophe is purely Greek, as is proved by the following parallels from the Greek poets and their Latin imitators :
a)Apostrophes to inanimate objects are characteristic of Hellenistic poetry. Thus asclepiades addresses a lamp (Ant. Pal. V 7), the snow (ibid. 64), garlands (ibid. 145), the night (ibid. 164); poseidippus addresses a jug (ibid. 134); moschus addresses the glades, waters, flowers, and birds (Lament for Bion) etc.
b)Doors that open spontaneously are mentioned by homer (Iliad V 749 and VIII 393), euripides (Bacchae 448), apollonius rhodius (IV 41-42), cicero, who is quoting callisthenes (De Div., I xxxiv 74), virgil (Aeneid VI 81-82) and ovid (Metam., III 699).
c)Addresses to doors occur in plautus (Curculio 88 and 147-151), properties (I xvi), and ovid (Ars Amandi III 581; Amores I vi 73-74, and II i 17-28). These Latin poets are known to have frequently imitated Greek models.
So this image is certainly Greek, and it is not unlikely that our Psalmist's model was precisely callimachus' hymn, considering that this hymn has other similarities with our Psalm: Apollo manifests himself only to the good (line 9): sinners are excluded from his dwelling-place (line 2); he is called "King" (line 79); he approaches the doors of his Temple and knocks to be admitted (line 3). This hymn appears to have been well-known to the Jews of that century, since Ps. ex 1 (which celebrates the high priest Simon) sounds like a reminiscence of lines 28-29. Now callimachus' hymn is dated 258-247 B.C. In any case, no Hebrew poet imitated Greek literature before the third century B.C.
7.If our Psalm had been composed in the days of Solomon or Darius, some complimentary reference to the king who had ordered and financed the building of the Temple would be expected. But here no king is mentioned. We are in the republican and theocratic days of Judas.
God himself is called King. Now, from the days of Saul to those of Zedekiah the Hebrews had human kings. They were a monarchy, not a theocracy. In the Persian and Greek periods, the Achaemenids, Ptolemies and Seleucids were officially recognized by the priesthood as the rightful kings of the Jews. They appointed or confirmed the high priests. Prayers for their lives were regularly offered in the Temple (Ezra vi 10). The kings contributed to the expenses of the sacrifices (2 Macc. iii 3). But when the Maccabean insurgents revolted against Antiochus Epiphanes and ceased to recognize him, they did not elect a Jewish king to take his place. Instead they appear to have declared themselves independent of all human princes and to have chosen God to be their King. This republican and theocratic regime presumably lasted until Antiochus Eupator reconquered Jerusalem, or until Simon was elected prince, or until Aristobulus became king 3). We may compare these events in Jerusalem with similar events in Florence, Italy. When the Florentines expelled the Medici in 1527, they resolved to be independent of all mortal princes and elected Jesus Christ to be their King. An inscription was set up over the doors of the City Palace, reading: iesus christus rex florentini populi s. p. decreto electus 4). Centuries later, when the Grand Dukes were again masters of the city, in order not to give offense to the legitimate sovereigns, the inscription was altered thus: iesus christus rex regum et dominus dominantium. In this altered form it is still visible today. This parallel between Jewish and Florentine usage may be completed with the remark that the phrase "King of Kings" as a title of God occurs in 2 Macc. xiii 4, written during the reign of the Hasmoneans.
9. The phrase "King of Glory" is borrowed from the Book of Enoch. Certain parts of this book were written about 165 B.C. during the persecution, when the practice of the Jewish religion and even the possession of Hebrew religious books were forbidden under pain of death. The Book of Enoch was written to comfort the persecuted and, in order to elude the Greek police, was couched in cryptic and allegorical language. Contemporary persons and things are mentioned under names borrowed from the Book of Genesis or invented by the author's fertile imagination. God is called "the Lord of Glory", "the King of Glory", etc. Our Psalmist, writing after the liberation, did not avoid naming the Lord openly. Yet he also borrowed this poetic phrase from Enoch 5).
10. Psalm xxiv 4 has not been understood properly. It is quite improbable that vain and frivolous persons should have been excluded from the City or even from the Temple. One could not post guards at the gates to ask visitors and pilgrims "Are you vain?" before letting them in. Our Psalm in my opinion refers to something quite different. Shav "vanity" is an euphemism for pagan deities (Jeremiah xviii 15; Psalms xxvi 4 and xxxi 6; hebel is also used in this sense). Pagan deities of course could not be named openly in a Jewish liturgical hymn. "To lift up one's soul" to a god means to worship him or pray to him (Psalms xxv 1, lxxxvi 4, cxliii 8) 6). Accordingly the men who lifted up their souls to Shav are the sinful priests who had participated in the worship of Zeus in the days of Epiphanes. Judas deposed them and appointed blameless priests in their stead (1 Macc. iv 42). This purge of priests in the days of Judas is a documented historical fact. It explains why the priests before entering the Temple to begin to perform their duties ("to stand in the Holy Place", as our Psalm says) had to declare their innocence. Probably an oath was required by Judas (and is mentioned in the words "who hath not sworn deceitfully").
11. The phrase "clean hands" in the sense of innocence of murder is Greek and probably comes straight from the tragedians. Cf. aeschylus, Eumenides 313:
???V???????q???V?c????V???????????V?????V?????????????V???｢???????
euripides, Orestes 1604:
????V??????????c????V?— ???｢?????V??????V.
Hippolytus 316-317:
????V?????????????c????V???????V??????V??c????V??????????????????｢ecei?????????? 7).
This phrase occurs also in the Book of Job, a third-century poem whose author was well versed in Greek literature and enriched the Hebrew language with a number of Greek phrases. So it is possible that the Book of Job was the intermediary between the Greeks and our Psalmist. However, this conjecture is unnecessary, as it appears from the imitation of callimachus that our Psalmist knew Greek.
12. This phrase probably indicates that some priests implicated in the murders committed by Menelaus (2 Macc. iv 34 and v 24) and Jason (2 Macc. v 6) were removed from the Temple service by Judas 8). No purge of priests is recorded in the days of David, Solomon and Darius.
13.The phrase "pure heart" also sounds Greek. See the lines of euripides quoted above 9).
14.Psalm xxiv 1 imitates Psalm lxxxix 11. A comparison of the verses makes it clear that the two poems are related and that Psalm xxiv is the later one: Psalm lxxxix quotes the statement (found in Psalm cxv 16 and in Daniel v 23) that the heavens belong to the Lord and adds that the earth also belongs to him. Psalm xxiv begins with the earth. If Psalm lxxxix had imitated Psalm xxiv it would have used the reverse order (the earth and also the heavens). Now Psalm lxxxix is a late poem. In my opinion it is composite: some verses probably belong to the Babylonian age; others to the age of Epiphanes. Verse 11 belongs to this latter group.
Perhaps these fourteen arguments will not seem all equally decisive to some readers. However, it will be difficult to refute them all. Their cumulative weight, in my opinion, makes the date that I suggest practically certain. No other date will fit all the words of our Psalm equally well.
I conjecture that our hymn was sung by two alternating choirs of priests or levites: one choir standing at the top of the steps near the entrance of the Temple and acting as guardians of the doors; the other choir advancing in procession and slowly ascending the steps. This second group included the blameless priests appointed by Judas. I would distribute the lines of Psalm xxiv thus:
Guardians: "The earth" etc. These lines assert God's sovereignty over the whole earth, the basic theme of the Psalm.
Procession: "Who shall ascend" etc. Notice that "to stand in the Holy Place" means to reside in the Temple as priests, not merely to visit it as pilgrims.
Guardians: "He that hath clean hands" etc. The word tsedakah is translated "righteousness" in the Authorised and Revised Versions. In late Hebrew it means "alms". kent and the Revised Standard Version translate it "vindication". Possibly it means something like "acquittal" of the charges or "ratification" of Judas' appointment.
Procession: "This is the generation" etc. It seems best to read "O God of Jacob" with the Vulgate and the Septuagint. But the MT omits the word "God".
Guardians: "Who is the King of Glory?" Procession: "The Lord strong and mighty" etc. Guardians: "Who is the King of Glory?" Procession: "The Lord of Hosts" etc.
A number of commentators would divide our Psalm into two or even three separate poems. This conjecture however must be rejected, because:
a)The style is uniform throughout the Psalm 10).
b)The meter, as far as can be discerned with our very imperfect understanding of Hebrew meter, appears to be uniform throughout.
c) The dialogic form, which is extremely rare in Hebrew liturgical poetry, occurs in both parts of the Psalm 11).
d)Allusions to God’s rule over the earth occur in both parts.
e)Allusions to the Temple occur in both parts.
f)The arguments for a late date concern both parts. Arguments for an early date are entirely lacking.
g)The idea of dividing the Psalm arose from the erroneous assumption that the singers were pilgrims. Once we have recognized that they were priests, this conjecture loses its raison d'être.
We conclude that Psalm xxiv was composed for the 25th day of Chisleu, 164 B.C. This was a memorable day in the history of Israel and is still commemorated yearly with the feast of Hanukkah.

Notes:
1)It seems unnecessary to list the opinions of all the commentators. kirkpatrick favors David's time; kent the Persian age; duhm the Maccabean. Many commentators would split our Psalm into two parts. According to berry the first part is Davidic and the second post-exilic. According to ewald and briggs the first is post-exilic and the second is Davidic. Etc.
2)In early texts the "Mountain of God" is Horeb, not Zion.
3)Actually all the OT passages in which God is called King seem to belong either to the Babylonian or to the Maccabean age. There is another reason why these passages can hardly be pre-exilic: it would have been blasphemous to confound the Lord with Melech (vocalized Molech or Moloch in our Bibles), the horrible idol to which children were sacrificed.
4)Bernardo segni, Storie fiorentine, Book I.
5)The Book of Enoch xci 13 had predicted: A House shall be built for the Great King in glory.
6)This phrase is possibly a spiritualized variant of the phrase "to lift up one's hands to a deity", which occurs in Greek (homer Iliad III 275, 318, XV 371, Odyssey IX 527; euripides Electra 592), Latin (virgil Aeneid I 93, II 153, 405-406, 688, III 176-177, V 256, 686, X 667; horace Odes III xxiii 1; ovid Metam. II 487, IV 238, VIII 681, and IX 702), and late Hebrew (Genesis xiv 22, Lament, ii 19; Psalm lxiii 4).
7)See also aeschylus Eumenides 41, 237, 280-281, 446; euripides Orestes 429; Medea 864, 1254; herodotus I, 35; antiphon, On the Murder of Herodes 11 (130); andocides On the mysteries 95 (12); plato Laws VIII 831 A; horace Epod. XVII 49; Sat. I iv 68.
8)2 Macc. v 16 says that Antiochus had "polluted hands".
9)For the phrase "pure heart" see also horace, Sat. II iii 213 and plato Laws IX 872 A.
10)Notice verses 3, 8 and 10, all beginning with the interrogative Who.
11)These real questions and answers should not be confused with the rhetorical questions (equivalent to negations) which occur in Psalms vi 5, lxxi 19, lxxvii 13, lxxxix 6, cvi 2; etc.