TWO ACROSTIC PSALMS

Psalm ii
1.Psalm ii celebrates a king (v. 6).
2.This king is an Israelite and dwells in Jerusalem (v. 6).
3.This king was "set" (or perhaps "anointed", the verb being êñð) on Mt. Zion, which is called "God's holy mountain". We can rule out not only David and Solomon, who were anointed before the Temple was built and the mountain became holy, but all the kings who mounted the throne before Josiah's great reformation of 621. In the preceding period the Judeans had sacrificed and worshipped on many other mountains, some of which were regarded as holier than Zion 1). As a matter of fact, the phrase "holy mountain" occurs only in post-Deuteronomic passages: Jerem. xxxi 23; Ezek. xx 40; Zech. viii 3; Joel, the Trito-Isaiah, Obadiah, Daniel, the appendix to the Book of Zephaniah, and some Maccabean Psalms.
4.Jehoahaz was Pharaoh's prisoner. Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah were Nebuchadnezzar's vassals. All were petty potentates, leading precarious existences under the suzerainty of the great powers. They could not think of conquering neighboring states. The proud, imperialistic tone of Psalm ii is not suited to them. In order to find a time when a Jewish king had subjugated foreign nations and was putting down their revolts, we must come to the days of the Hasmoneans.
5.Both Solomon's Palace, where all the Davidic kings presumably lived, and the house of the Hasmoneans were not far from the Temple 2). However, in the pre-exilic days the Temple was primarily the chapel of the Palace and was subordinate to it 3), so that it seems unlikely that a court poet, wishing to indicate the Palace, should make no allusion to David or Solomon, but only to God's Temple. The Hasmoneans were both priests and kings and drew their prestige from their connection with the holy Temple. Moreover, their house was presumably not so magnificent as Solomon's palace. It was important because it was the residence of the high priest.
6.The exhortation to the kings of the earth to serve the Lord seems to imply a universalistic monotheism, which, according to some scholars, is not earlier than the Deuteronomic reform 4).
7.The Hasmoneans compelled the conquered nations to embrace the Jewish religion 5). When these nations revolted, they presumably reverted to their own gods. Accordingly one could say that they
revolted "against the Lord and against His Anointed" (v. 2). The Jews might properly exhort them "to serve the Lord" (v. 11). In pre-exilic days such phrases would hardly have been used. Indeed the pre-exilic kings were so tolerant in matters of religion that they permitted shrines of foreign gods in Jerusalem down to the days of Josiah (2 Kings xxiii 13).
These five data of our Psalm—the existence of the Temple before the king's accession to the throne, the subordination of the king's residence to the Temple, universalistic monotheism, the inclusion of non-Jewish vassals in a Jewish empire, and the insurgents’ apostasy from Judaism—might be thought to be sufficient evidence that our king is one of the Hasmoneans 6).
Any doubt, however, is dispelled by the acrostic, still legible despite some textual corruption 7):
åðò åúùàå à éðéì "Sing ye to Jannaeus the First and his wife" 8).
Jannaeus on mounting the throne married his brother's widow according to the law of Levirate (Deut. xxv 5-10) 9), presumably in order to inherit Aristobulus’ estate and be recognized as legitimate king. In all likelihood the two ceremonies, viz. the wedding and the anointing or coronation took place on the same day or with a brief interval. This explains why the wife - the famous queen Alexandra - is mentioned in the acrostic.
Only kings, not priests, were anointed in the pre-exilic period, but in later times high priests were anointed too 10). Jannaeus, being both a high priest and a king, was doubly entitled to be called “the Lord's Anointed”.
John Hyrcanus, Aristobulus, and Jannaeus expanded considerably the Jewish kingdom beyond the borders of Judea, and waged in­cessant wars against the rulers of the neighboring cities. We do not know which particular potentates our Psalmist had in mind. From the Psalm it appears that they were merely plotting and had not yet broken out in open revolt.
Additional evidence of the late date of Psalm ii may be found in the language and the phraseology:
Verse 1: The verb ùâø is an Aramaism, which occurs only here and in Daniel. The corresponding noun occurs in Maccabean Psalms.
Verse 2: The phrase "kings of the earth" occurs in Ezekiel, the Trito-Isaiah, Job, Psalms, and 1 Maccabees.
Verse 3: The metaphor "to break [the oppressor's] bonds" occurs with the same words in Psalm cvii 14, Jeremiah, and Nahum. It arose naturally with reference to Israelites oppressed by foreigners. With reference to foreigners subjugated by Jews it is less natural in a poem written by a Jew for Jews, and therefore appears to be later.
Verse 4: The circumlocution "He that sitteth in the heavens" would be unintelligible to a listener unacquainted with the statements of Psalms xi 4 and ciii 19 and Isaiah Ixvi 1, which make it clear that it refers to God. It is therefore later than these verses. God's laughter and mocking are borrowed from some late passages (Psalms xxxvii 13 and lix 8 and Job ix 23, where it is explained more fully). These passages in turn may have gotten the idea from the Odyssey viii 326. The verb ÷çù, which originally meant "to play", "to make sport", in Hellenistic times acquired the meaning "to laugh", replacing ÷çö. The verb âòì “to mock” does not occur before the exile.
Verse 9: The simile "to break like a potters' vessel" may be borrowed from Isaiah xxx 14 or from Jeremiah xix 11, where the phrase is more complete and intelligible. Psalm ii uses the verb òòø "to break", a late Aramaism, in this acceptation.
Verse 10: The phrase "judges of the earth" occurs also in Isaiah xl 23 and Psalm cxlviii.
Verse 11-12: The word äãòø "trembling" is late. These verses are based on reminiscences of Deut. vi 13 (Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God and Him shalt thou serve… lest the anger of the Lord thy God be kindled against thee and He destroy thee from off the face of the earth) and xi 16-17 (Take heed lest ... ye …serve other gods … and the anger of the Lord be kindled against you … and ye perish quickly from off the good land …) 11).
We may remark that when some unusual phrase occurs both in a prophecy and a psalm, the psalmist is ordinarily the borrower, because the language of liturgy - in all nations and religions - is conservative, archaistic, and fond of traditional phrases hallowed by the centuries, whereas a prophet in delivering God's messages to the people, frequently has to coin original phrases in order to express original thoughts. This rule, of course, does not apply to idioms which the prophet and the psalmist may have borrowed independently from the spoken language.
Now if a few words or phrases of Psalm ii are not pre-exilic, we must date it at the very end of the second century, because no Jewish kings reigned between Zedekiah and Aristobulus.
We have tried three independent methods for dating the Psalm. They are based on the contents, on the acrostic, and on the language. All three lead to the same conclusion.
Should Psalm ii be called “messianic”? If we use this term “Mes­siah” in the etymological sense, as an equivalent of the Hebrew mashiah “an Anointed one”, it certainly should. If we use it in the more recent sense to mean a future king of the race of David, it should not 12). Apart from the acrostic, which we regard as decisive, we may remark that when a poet mentions a king without any specifying word he means the king then reigning, and not a future king of another dynasty; that the verb “I have set” is in the past tense; and that the reign of the future Davidic king was expected to be peaceful.
We may also remark that briggs's statement that our king ruled over a world-wide empire is unjustified. The words "nations", "peoples", "kings", and "rulers" have no article in the Hebrew. This is natural, as they refer to a few neighboring nations and kings.
Psalm ii was composed by an adherent of the Hasmoneans. These adherents were then called Sadducees. The so-called "Messianists" on the contrary were to be sought among the Pharisees.
Psalm ii, being dated in 103 B.C., is possibly the latest page of the Hebrew O.T. - exclusive of the Apocrypha. At any rate, it is the latest page to which I can assign a definite date. If the earliest page is Deborah's song, as some scholars believe, we may say that the Hebrew Bible goes from Deborah to Jannaeus, covering about one thousand years. These were a thousand years of political triumphs and disasters, of wonderful religious development, of splendid poetry.

Psalm cx
1.Psalm cx celebrates a sanguinary warrior (verses 1-3, 5-6), who is also a priest (v. 4). He is a leader of the army (v. 2-3, 7). His headquarters are in Zion (v. 2). He is fighting against the "nations" (v. 6). The Hasmoneans are the only warrior-priests in Jewish history, with the exception of Chelkias and Ananias, who, however, did not live in Zion. Our warrior-priest must be one of the Hasmoneans.
1.We can rule out Aristobulus and Jannaeus, who were kings. If our warrior had been a king, the poet would have found an opportunity to say so. To be sure, the word "my lord", which occurs in verse 1, was used by the Hebrews as a respectful vocative or a polite substitute for a pronoun in reference to both kings and commoners, and also for designating a husband or a master. But the poet, who remarks on the priestly title of his master, would have remarked on the royal title too, if the master had borne it.
2.Verse 5, in which God smites kings in general, without specifying whether they are Jews or foreigners, friends or foes, is a second proof that our warrior is not a king. Indeed it proves that Israel in those
days was a republic, for otherwise the hymn would have sounded insulting to the sovereign. Israel was an independent republic for various periods between 140 and 104 B.C.
1.A second reason for excluding Jonathan is that Jonathan was high priest on a personal basis. It was Simon who made the high-priesthood hereditary in his family in 140 B.C. and assumed officially the title "high priest for ever" 13), which is alluded to in our Psalm.
2.We can rule out John Hyrcanus and his successors, who fought their wars with foreign mercenaries (josephus, Ant. XIII viii 4, 249). The warrior of our Psalm, like Judas, Jonathan, and Simon, leads an army of Jewish volunteers (Psalm cx 3).
We may conclude that our man must be Simon, the only person who fits the data of our Psalm. This identification is confirmed by the acrostic 14), which reads: íéà ïòîù “Simon is terrible”.
An analysis of the language and phraseology supports the late dating of the Psalm.
Verse 1: God's invitation to the warrior to sit at his right hand is very unusual. Some commentators cite the example of Solomon, who according to 1 Chron. xxix 23 sat on the throne of the Lord 15), and according to 1 Kings ii 19, placed Bath-sheba at his right hand. A closer parallel I find in callimachus' Hymn to Apollo 29, where Apollo sits at Zeus's right hand. Our poet may have known this hymn, since a second parallel occurs in verses 67-68, which tell us that Apollo always keeps his oath. This Greek hymn was probably imitated also in Psalm xxiv 16), which proves that it was known to the better educated Jews of the second century.
Verse 3: If "holy mountains" is the correct reading, the phrase has a post-Deuteronomic ring. If úåãìé stands for "young men", it is a hapax legomenon in this sense and may well be a translation borrowing from Greek, for occurs several times in AESCHYLUS for “young men”
Verse 4: The word äøáã belongs to late Hebrew and Aramaic. The mention of Melchizedek, if genuine, alludes to the episode in Genesis xiv, which is a late interpolation 17).
Verse 5 a seems to be an imitation of such verses as Psalm xvi 8 and cix 31, in which the Lord stands at the Psalmist's right hand. It may seem a bit strange that God, who in verse 1 was sitting at the left, should have changed places with the warrior, and that the same word éðãà, though with different vocalizations, should be used for both. But our poet was not very skilful.
Verse 5b: The phrase "day of God's wrath" (óà) occurs three times in Lam. ii. Like here, it refers to events of the past and has no eschatological meaning.Verse 6 recalls Psalm vii 8 (or ix 8 or xcvi 10, 13 or Jeremiah xxv 31 or Joel iii 2, in all of which God judges the nations), Ezekiel xxxii 5 (or xxxv 8, in which God fills the valleys with the slain) and Psalm Ixviii 21 (in which God strikes through the head of the enemies).
Verse 7 b recalls Psalms iii 3 and xxvii 6.
All the parallels listed are post-Deuteronomic.
A. F. Kirkpatrick 18) raises two objections to the Hasmonean date of our Psalm: a) The Hasmoneans were first priests and then princes, whereas the Psalm refers to a prince on whom the priesthood is conferred; b) our Psalm contains a prophecy and there were no prophets in the days of Simon.
These objections do not seem valid: our Psalm describes a military leader on whom perpetual high-priesthood is conferred. Now Simon was a military leader since 166, but became a high priest in 140. The old guilds of prophets no longer existed in the second century, but voices from Heaven were still occasionally heard, if we are to believe contemporary accounts (2 Macc. iii 33-34; Josephus, Ant. XIII, x, 3, 282, 7, 300; xi, 2, 311; xii 1, 322). Psalm ii is not a prophecy. Prophecies had the purpose of admonishing or consoling the people. Our Psalm is a hymn in honour of a high priest. The poet of course mentions God's blessings on the warrior-priest, as was the custom in hymns of this kind (cf. Psalms ii, xxi, xlv, lxxii).
We may add that the tenses of verses 5 (Hath stricken through kings) and 6 (Hath filled, Hath wounded) show that the poet is referring to Simon's past campaigns.
S. R. driver finds two "messianic" features in our Psalm: the victory over the warrior's foes and the perpetual priesthood 19). Well, it is precisely these two features that make it non-messianic: the future Davidic king was expected to reign in peace (Isaiah ix 7; Jeremiah xxiii 6, xxxiii 16; Ezekiel xxxiv 25, Micah v 5) and not to be a priest.
I wish to dispel a frequent misunderstanding: some exegetes have remarked that in early times sacrifices were performed by non-Levites and that priests could be chosen from any tribe, and have concluded that in the pre-exilic period the offices of the king and priest could be combined. This conclusion is unwarranted. To be sure the functions of the priests changed somewhat through the centuries 20). In early times they were occupied more with oracles and ephods than with sacrifices. By Jehoshaphat they were entrusted with judicial functions (2 Chronicles xix 4-11). In later times they were chiefly engaged in sacrifices, libations, and other religious ceremonies, and teaching the Torah (Ecclus xlv 14-17, 1 12-21). But even when laymen slaughtered animals with their own hands kings were not called "priests". In later times the two offices were sharply distinguished (Numbers i 51; iii 10, 38; xvi 40; 1 Sam. ii 35; 2 Chron. xxvi 16-21; Zech. iv 14; Ecclus xlv 25). Only the ancient Melchizedek and the Hasmoneans were both kings and priests.
Verse 3 is corrupt. One sees that the Jews enlist as volunteers in Simon's army, but the rest is obscure 21).
Verse 4 recalls the O. T. passages in which God either repents (Gen. vi 6-7; 1 Sam. xv 10, 35, etc.) or does not repent (Num. xxiii 19; 1 Sam. xv 29, etc.), but our poet may have had in mind particularly the fate of the house of Eli, to whom God had promised a perpetual priesthood (1 Sam. ii 30, iv 11-18).
The phrase "after the order of Melchizedek" cannot mean "of a non-Levitical family", because Melchizedek was not merely a non-Levite. He lived before Levi was born, and was presumably a Canaanite. He was a priest of El Elyon, the Most High God, a Phenician deity, which in the Maccabean age was identified with the Lord of Hosts of the Israelites. Melchizedek was certainly not a priest for ever, as his descendants, if he had any, were replaced by Israelites. Our verse, if it is genuine, can only mean "combining political and spiritual authority as Melchizedek did" 22). This combination was a new thing in Israel, and was doubtless resented by many. A revolt at last broke out under Simon's son, John Hyrcanus. The name "Melchizedek" is expunged by some critics 23) who translate "on my account", referring to the fact that Simon had not been appointed by a heathen ruler, as Jonathan had. But this interpretation seems to me irreconcilable with the veneration that Simon professed for his brother. I do not think he would have hinted that Jonathan's authority was illegitimate.
Verse 6: The "head of a vast country" might be Tryphon, Antiochus Sidetes, or Cendebaeus.
Verse 7a at first sight seems difficult and various emendations might be proposed. Leaving the text as it is, we may suppose that Simon, starting on an expedition through the desert, expected a repetition of the miracle granted to king Jehoram, when he found the wadis full of water (2 Kings iii 17); or that the verse refers to the brook mentioned in 1 Macc. xvi 5-6 24).
Many obscurities still remain in these two Psalms. I hope someone will suggest better emendations and interpretations and correct my mistakes 25).

1)Cf. 1 Kings xiv 23; 2 Kings xvi 4, xvii 10; Jerem. iii 6. See J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel, New York 1957, p. 21; A. Lods, Israel des origines au milieu du VIIle siecle, Paris, 1932, p. 479; id. Histoire de la littérature hébraïque et juive, Paris 1950, p. 111. Likewise the phrases “holy city” (for Jeru­salem), “holy house” and “holy habitation” (for the Temple) occur only in texts composed after 621.
2)Simon fortified the hill of the Temple and dwelt there with his men (1 Macc. xiii 52). Aristobulus lay ill in the castle afterwards called Antonia Josephus, Antiq. XIII, xi 1, 307). From the Hasmonean palace one could see what was going on inside the Temple courtyards (pp. tit. XX, viii 11, 895). See also S. Perowne, The Life and Times of Herod the Great, London, 1957, p. 115.
3)E. Renan, Histoire du peuple d'Israël, II (1891), p. 142; Wellhausen, op. cit., p. 139; A. Parrot, The Temple of Jerusalem, London, 1957, p. 51; A. Lods, Israël etc., p. 480; H. St. John Hart, A Foreword to the Old Testament, New York, 1951, p. 91.
4)A. Lods, Des Prophètes à Jésus: Les Prophètes d'Israël et les debuts du Judaïsme, Paris 1950, pp. 66, 99, 272-275, 364; T. J. Meek, Hebrew Origins, New York, 1960, p. 227; N. H. Snaith, The Jews from Cyrus to Herod, Wallington, 1956, pp. 62-65; Max Loehr, A History of Religion in the Old Testament, New York, 1936, pp. 178-185.
5)Josephus, Antiq. XIII, ix 1, 257-258; xi 3, 318; 4, 397.
6)This was perceived even by F. Hitzig (Die Psalmen Übersetzt und ausgelegt, 1863) and W. F. Cobb (The Book of Psalms, London, 1905), who had not noticed the acrostic.
7)Verse 12 a in particular has been variously pointed, emended, and trans­lated: “Lay hold of instruction” (Septuagint, Targum, etc.); “Worship purely” (Symmachus, Jerome, Kent); “Kiss choicely” (Aquila); “Kiss the son” (Syriac, Ibn Ezra, Luther, King James, Delitzsch, Barnes); “Arm yourselves with purity” (Harcavy); “Kiss the earth” (Haupt, Buttenwieser); “Kiss his feet” (Bertholet, Gunkel, Oesterley, Rowley, the RSV); “Forget the war” or “Bring gifts” (Castellino). Cheyne, Cobb, and Bickell expunge the phrase. None of these renderings is free from difficulties, but the uncertainty of the interpretation will not affect the general drift of the Psalm or its dating. I suggest that a few words may have dropped out. I would restore: “Worship [Him and hearken to the world (øáã), lest He be angry etc.” A kiss could be an act of worship: cf. 1 Kings xix 18 and Hosea xiii 2. In any case, I think it is God, not the king, who might be angry. Other emendations of this Psalm are proposed by J. Morgenstern (Jewish Quarterly Review XXXII (1942), pp. 371-385).
8)This acrostic (except for the last word) has been discovered by R. H. Pfeiffer (see his work The Books of the Old Testament, New York 1957, p. 198), åúùàå "and his wife" occurs in Ps. cix 9. åðò "sing ye" occurs in Ps. cxlvii 7.
9)See Josephus, Antiq. XIII, xii 1, 320: E. Schurer, A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus, New York 1961, p. 82. Snaith, op. cit., p. 47. Ezekiel (xliv 22) permits the marriage of a priest with the widow of another priest, although the Holiness Code (Levit. xxi 14) forbids the high priest to marry a widow. See also Philo Iudaeus, De Monarchia II, 11.
10)See 1 Sam. ii 35, Zech. iv 14, Exodus xxx 30-31, xl 13-15 and other passages from the Priestly Code. See Snaith, op. cit. p. 107.
11)I do not discuss the last line with its Greek-sounding exclamation, because some exegetes - Grimm, Cobb, Briggs - regard it as a later liturgical addition.
12)The adoption formula in Psalm ii has been compared to the formula of recognition of a concubine's children in the Code of Hammurabi:, § 170; and also to the description of Solomon as God's son in 2 Sam. vii 14 and 1 Chron. xxii 10.
13)1 Macc, xiv 41. See also E. Bevan, Jerusalem under the High-Priests, London 1948, p. 109; E. Schurer, A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus, New York 1961, p. 62; 1)G. Ricciotti, Storia d’Israele, Torino 1960, II, 322. For the meaning of íìåòì “for ever” see also 2 Chron. xiii 5.
14)The first word of the acrostic was discovered independently by G. Margoliouth and G. Bickell, and recognized by T. K. Cheyne, W. F. Cobb, C. F. Kent, S. Bernfeld, N. H. Snaith, R. H. Charles, R. H. Pfeiffer, etc.
15)This phrase may mean "the throne of the kingdom of the Lord" (cf. 1 Chron. xxviii 5 and Jerem. iii 17) and does not imply that the Lord was sitting in Solomon's palace.
16)See my study in Vetus Testamentum X (1960) p. 430.
17)During the Persian and Hellenistic periods the nations that had been subjugated by the Persians and the Greeks liked to invent stories about their own ancient heroes magnifying their exploits in order to make them rival and excel the great of the ruling races. The Egyptians told that their Sesostris had con­quered large parts of Europe and Asia (Diodorus Siculus I, 53-55). The Jews transformed their Abraham, who in earlier traditions was a shepherd chieftain and a nomad Aramean, into a great warrior who defeated four kings. The names of these four kings are possibly historical and may have been picked up by an exiled Jew in some Babylonian chronicle, but the story is improbable and the language is late. See A. Lods, Histoire de la littérature hébraïque et juive, Paris 1950, pp. 616-622.
18)A. F. Kirkpatrick, The Book of Psalms, Cambridge, 1951, p. 664.
19)S. R. Driver, An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, New York, 1956, p. 384 n.
20)See J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel, New York, 1957, chap. IV; A. Lods, Israël des origines au milieu du VIIIe siècle, Paris 1932, pp. 511-512; Histoire de la littérature hébraïque et juive, Paris 1950, pp. 111-112; T. J. Meek Hebrew Origins, New York 1960, chap. IV; H. St. J. Hart, A Foreword to the Old Testament, New York 1951, chap. V.
21)Perhaps the general meaning of this verse is roughly: "Thy people will volunteer in the day of the mobilization; from the west and from the east thou shalt have the warriors of thy youth".
22)So C. F. Kent, The Songs, Hymns, and Prayers of the Old Testament, New York I'M-I, p. 111.
23)W. F. Cobb, The Book of Psalms, London, 1905, p. 320.
24)On the theological problems raised by the use of this Psalm in the N.T. see the explanations given from a Christian viewpoint by Kirkpatrick and Cobb in their commentaries on the Psalms and by T. K. Cheyne in the article "Melchizedek" in the Encyclopaedia biblica.
25)Additional conjectures: Psalm ii 11: some other verb might suit the context better than "rejoice". Verse 12: we might read "weapons" followed by some verb meaning "destroy", "break", or "put away". Psalm cx 3: the strange "dew" might be emended to some noun meaning "warriors" or "comrades". Verse 5: if we could read "My lord, at God's right hand" we would remove three difficulties : the use of the same word for God and the Prince, the exchange of seats, and the change of subjects in verses 5-7.