According to Peter Flint we can discern three literary editions of the Psalter: Edition I (Pss. 1/2 – 89), Edition IIa (Pss. 1/2 – 89 and 11QPs^a), and Edition IIb (Pss. 1/2 – 89 and Pss. 90-150). After looking at the Qumran MSS Dwight D. Swanson states that there is manuscript evidence for at least three Psalters existing simultaneously in late Second Temple Judaism: an MT-type, a Cave 11-type, and an LXX-type and suggests that it is not unreasonable to conclude that there could have been more. The MT Psalter then appears to be the latest edition of the Psalter and, he argues, that the MT-Psalter reached its final form in the late first century C.E.*

* SWANSON, D. D. (2005) “Qumran and the Psalms”, in David Firth and Philip S. Johnston (eds.) Interpreting the Psalms: Issues and Approaches. IVP. pp. 259-260

I have often wondered why in the Gospel of St. Luke we have the order of Law, Prophets and Psalms (Luke 24:44). I think it may be to do with how the Psalms were viewed in early Judaism. The Qumran community viewed the Psalms as prophecy composed by David (11QPs^a) and so I would suggest that the formula of “law and the prophets” (Luke 16:16) may have been extended by Luke, and the community of faith he was representative of, who added the Psalms as a distinct part of their scripture on the grounds that they are really a subset of the prophets. Any thoughts?

Back in March an interesting discussion took place over on John Anderson’s blog when I asked his opinion on when he thought the Psalter closed. Phil Sumpter also chimed in. As they are both quite interesting I thought I would post them here.

John Anderson

Re: the closing of the Psalter, I used to have this information very much at the tip of my mind, but alas, much of it has gone away. Here, though, is how I would respond:

The issue is of course a complex one, especially with the Qumran material now in play. Wilson’s The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter notes three possibilities with the Qumran evidence in mind: 1) a sequential linkage [i.e. 11QPsa-->MT150]; 2) parallel collection [i.e., 11QPsa a more inclusive collection, with MT 150 becoming official canon at the end of the first century CE]; 3) MT 150 stabilized prior to the 4th century BCE [thus making the Qumran material of a different sort]. The Qumran pss material certainly seems to point to a fixity for Books I-III early on, and a greater fluidity with Books IV-V even into the first century. This issue is compounded all the more, I think, by how one understands the Qumran community (just how ’sectarian’ are they?) and, more importantly, what constitutes scripture for them? I would argue the Qumran community certainly has a much looser view of Scripture (see, for instance, the double citation and intentional alteration of ’scripture’ in two lemmata in the Habakkuk pesher (1QpHab), or even the many Rewritten Scripture texts, or Genesis Apocryphon, or Jubilees), and thus it is conceivable to me–but still equivocal–that the Qumran pss material may not be decisive in solving the question . . . but it is no doubt seminal.

Peter Flint, in his The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls and The Book of Psalms argues that the corrections in 4Qpse suggestion an earlier edition (11QPsa) that was corrected toward a text similar to the MT. He thus sees three editions of the Psalter at Qumran: 1) early edition [Pss 1/2-89] used before the founding of the community ca. 150 BCE; 2) Edition IIA [11QPsa], which has scriptural status; Pss 90ff joined with Edition I before the Qumran period by those advocating the solar calendar; 3) Edition IIB [the MT 150], completed prior to the Qumran period. Flint also points out that the fact the MT arrangement is attested in a LXX trans in the second half of the 2nd century BCE corroborates this view).

Two other views deserve brief mention. Patrick Skehan sees 11QPsa as dependent upon MT 150. George Brooke argues that Books I-III are stable in the early Second Temple period, but Books IV-V compiled at a later date (cf. Wilson).

Now that I’ve done my history of scholarship (wink) . . . it seems to me the Qumran evidence provides a terminus ad quem of around the first century CE. But the LXX attests to a period a few centuries earlier. This point, however, cannot be an unequivocal terminus ante quem . . . one would have to go back further and have other mss. evidence to corroborate. There are, though, compelling arguments for reading the Psalter in a post exilic (Persian?) context. That said, I would conclude with two provisional points.

1) The Psalter achieved its final canonical form sometime between, roughly, the 4th century BCE-1st century CE. A huge span of time, but right now, without doing further reading to refresh my memory, I don’t feel safe getting any more specific.

2) 11QPsa–and other Qumran pss material–likely knew and derived from at the very least a well established Books I-III, or perhaps even the entire MT 150.

Phil Sumpter

I’m not expert, but I can at least add the considerations made by Erich Zenger for narrowing the time frame down to the fifty year gap between 200-150 BCE. History of thought issus seem to play a significant role:

1) The editorially placed Psalter framework (Pss 1-2 and 146-150) reflect the language and theology found in Jesus Sirach (175 BCE).
2) The same goes for Qumran’s wisdom text musar lammebin and the “Book of Mysteries” (Tora wisdom, eschatology, ethnic-cosmological dualism, praise of God).
3) The Qumran Pesher 4QMidr.Eschat(a ) (71-63 BCE) combines the sequence of Ps 1:1 and Ps 2:1f. with other Biblical quotes and applies them eschatologically to the Qumran community. For the order of the Psalter to have had such authority, A. Lange reckons it must have accepted with the grounding of the community in 152 BCE.
4) The LXX translation (Jerusalem, 100 BCE?) affirms the MT ordering and the number of Psalms.
5) The paleographic manuscript Masada Psalms b (2 half of 1st cent. BCE) confirms the order.
6) The differing order in 11QPs [a], could, as you say, be due to liturgical usage. It may even have been made to compete with the MT, which would just confirm the dating.

Check it out here.

Although there is still no consensus on this point, most indicators point toward a pair of variant editions of the biblical Psalter in the late Second Temple period. 11QPs^a, followed by 11QPs^b and possibly 4QPs^e, displays an expanded and somewhat differently arranged series of psalms. The preserved LXX (not necessarily the OG) of Psalms mostly follows the MT arrangement, although it does, in agreement with 11QPs^a, include Psalm 151 at the end. Interestingly, there is no Psalm manuscript from Qumran, and only one from Masada (MasPs^b), “whose order unambiguously supports the received Psalter against the 11QPs^a arrangement.”

Ulrich, E. (1999) The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible. Eerdmans. pp. 229

Another interesting volume is The Book of Psalms: Composition and Reception.

Written by leading experts in the field as well as some younger scholars, The Book of Psalms: Composition and Reception offers a wide-ranging treatment of the main aspects of Psalms study. The almost 30 essays consist of two overall sections. The first section contains studies of a more general nature; commentary on or interpretation of specific Psalms; social setting; and the Psalter as book. The second section contains essays on the literary context of the Psalter (including Qumran texts); textual history and reception in Judaism and Christianity; and the theology of the Psalter. The volume ends with a cumulative bibliography and several useful indices.

Preview it here.

Of particular interest for me is J. J. M. Roberts’ “Mowinckel’s Enthronement Festival: A Review”.

Do check out Peter Flint’s bookThe Dead Sea Psalms Scroll & the Book of Psalms. It can be previewed here.

Blurb

Among the Dead Sea Scrolls, Psalms are found in no less than thirty-nine manuscripts. This groundbreaking volume presents the first comprehensive study of these scrolls, by making available a wealth of primary data and investigating the main issues that arise.
The first part provides information which many scholars will find enormously helpful, such as descriptions of the manuscripts, listings of variant readings, a synopsis of superscriptions, and indices of contents of all the Psalms scrolls. The second part investigates the issues, some of which are relevant to the Book of Psalms itself (e.g. stabilization in two distinct stages), while others focus upon 11QPsa, the largest Psalms scroll (e.g. part of an edition of the Book of Psalms), and one involves the relation of these manuscripts to the Septuagint Psalter.

I am very close to being convinced that there were (at least) two major editions of the Psalter. One is found in the MT and more or less reflected in the LXX, though there are numerous minor variants as well as the single major variant that the LXX includes Psalm 151, whereas the MT ends with Psalm 150. A second Psalter – a second edition of the scriptural book of Psalms – is partly preserved in 11QPs[a]; this assertion is supported by the fact that a second manuscript (11QPs[b]) and perhaps a third (4QPs[e]) also seem to exhibit this edition, whereas there is “only one scroll from Masada (MasPs[b]), and none from Qumran, whose order unambiguously supports the Received Psalter against the 11QPs[a] arrangement.” It should also be noted that 11QPs[a] ends with Psalm 151, as does the LXX.

Ulrich, E. (1999)The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible. Eerdmans. pp. 30