Psalm Titles and the Doctrine of Original Authorship

[Deacon]

In the Hebrew Scriptures, the titles of various psalms are numbered with the verses of the psalm:

תהלים 3 1 מִזְמֹ֥ור לְדָוִ֑ד בְּ֝בָרְחֹ֗ו מִפְּנֵ֤י׀ אַבְשָׁלֹ֬ום בְּנֹֽו׃​

In English, the titles are separate from the text:

Psalm 3:title
A Psalm of David, when he fled from his son Absalom.​

In Hebrew the verse numbers are different than in our English Bibles.
The numbering of the verses was a late addition to our Scriptures and not considered inspired.
But the titles of the Psalms themselves are considered inspired - or are they?

The Septuagint (LXX) has many more titles than those of found in the Hebrew text.

The titles of various Psalms were obviously not written by their original author but added at a later date.

How does this affect the doctrine of Original Authorship of the Scriptures?

Rob

 

[Van]

I do not see where the addition of titles or other clarifying words and phrases, hinders the doctrine that the original autographs were inerrant in that they presented the message God intended. We do not, at present, have any of those documents, so what we have are copies made by uninspired people, probably doing their best to duplicate the original text exactly.

We suspect, in the modern age, that somewhere in the line of transmission from the originals to the copies we have today, that errors were introduced inadvertently and on purpose as the scribe added or altered the text to clarify or fix it. For example, if a description of an event was presented in one gospel, and the description differed in another, sometimes the scribes would do an alteration to make them the same.

I am all for adding clarifications and guides to help us understand scripture. But of course, what we add must be clearly identified rather than presented as if in the inspired text. Take James 2:5, with folks "poor to the word, [to be] rich in faith and ...." Many modern translation do not put the addition in italics or brackets so the unsuspecting reader could not discern that errant addition actually alters the text, from saying God chose those already rich in faith, to saying God chose those to become rich in faith. The best clarifying addition I have seen is "those poor to the world, [yet] rich in faith...,"

 

[Deacon]

I'm not writing about the introductions or the section or paragraph titles found in many versions like the NASB or ESV.
These are generally in italics and are generally noted as "valuable features" of a version rather than inspired text.

EXAMPLE:

PSALM 3
>>>>> Morning Prayer of Trust in God. (NASB expository title). <<<<<<
A Psalm of David, when he fled from his son Absalom.​

Rob

 

[Van]

A Psalm of David is a clarifying statement and is helpful. These clarifications do not affect the doctrine concerning the original autographs.

Your issue seems to be whether or not these titles were in the original autographs, and of course, logically they would not be. David is unlikely to have written "... when he..." David would have written, when I fled from..

Hope this helps

 

[Deacon]

The added Psalm titles are considered an inspired part of Scripture, even though there is evidence that they were added much later in the history of the text.
This causes me to question the various forms of the New Testament text, [i.e. earliest manuscripts verses textus receptus/ Majority text].

When we debate about what the "ORIGINAL TEXT" is, are we making a mountain about a molehill?
Can they both be considered inspired?

There are places in the OT that indicate additions to the text that occurred at a date later than might be expected in an original composition.

Most of the Torah (the five Books of Moses) was written in the third person ('and this is what Moses did...'), not as if Moses himself had written it.

There are many additions, an obvious one can be found in Genesis 36:31;

"Now these are the kings who reigned in the land of Edom before any king reigned over the sons of Israel." (NASB 2020)​

Aramaic words in Genesis is indicative of later editing. In fact, the alphabet itself changed dramatically; in the time period of Moses the alphabet was quite rudimentary, some of the letters were not present.
By the time of the Babylonian conquest of Judah, the alphabet and the language itself had progressed, requiring a re-write of the original Scriptures.
The text was foreign to the people and had to be explained in a way those from the exile could understand:

Nehemiah 8:7b–8 (NASB 2020)
"...the Levites explained the Law to the people while the people remained in their place.
They read from the book, from the Law of God, translating to give the sense so that they understood the reading."​

Should we consider the subtile changes we observe in the NT Majority text simply a refinement of the original text to make it more 'acceptable' to a growing community of believers?

Should we consider the many forms of the NT text inspired?

Rob

 

[Van]

"Should we consider the many forms of the NT text inspired?"

Nope!! We should consider God inspired the original autographs, thus a single version, and that the various versions of that initial text demonstrate all them, or all but one of them, has been altered in transmission from the original to the copies being considered.

BTW, just who considers the titles to be inspired? Do you have a link? Lots of people believe they were added when the Psalms were grouped together in a book form probably circa 1st century BC, with some thinking they may have been added even earlier.

 

[Van]

"Most of the Torah (the five Books of Moses) was written in the third person ('and this is what Moses did...'), not as if Moses himself had written it".

I think the modern view is that Moses compiled from earlier texts, and perhaps edited them to remove errant material, in accord with God's guidance and instruction. He also is thought to have authored by inspiration parts of text. (John says Moses wrote) Lastly, someone else, perhaps Joshua wrote the last part of Deuteronomy, as it describes events after Moses had died. The five books of Moses as originally compiled by Moses and finished perhaps by Joshua are considered inspired.

 

[Deacon]

BTW, just who considers the titles to be inspired? Do you have a link? Lots of people believe they were added when the Psalms were grouped together in a book form probably circa 1st century BC, with some thinking they may have been added even earlier.

My position is that the preponderance of evidence leads to the conclusion that the titles should be considered canonical. They are as much a part of the Hebrew text as are the titles in 2 Samuel 22:1, Isaiah 38:9, and Habakkuk 3:1, or the editorial notes in Proverbs 10:1, 22:17, and 24:23. The ancient tradition of the Masoretes accents the titles along with the text and thus does not separate the titles from the rest of the text. And the New Testament is at times willing to base a theological argument on information in a title (see Acts 2:29–31). Authenticity does not, however, require a given title to have been written by the original poet (Kidner 1973a:33 and Longman 1995:208 n. 22), any more than it requires Deuteronomy 34:5–8 to have been written by Moses. Authenticity as used here means the titles record accurate information with regard to the particular psalm.
Mark D. Futato, “The Book of Psalms,” in Cornerstone Biblical Commentary, Vol 7: The Book of Psalms, The Book of Proverbs (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2009), 5.​

Although ancient but not original, the titles are part of the canonical text for several reasons: (1) The New Testament at times treats the titles as Scripture and builds arguments on this material (see Mark 12:35–37; Acts 2:29–35; 13:35–37). (2) The title to Psalm 18 is embedded in the canonical text of 2 Samuel at 22:1. It seems that the canonical nature of this material in 2 Samuel 22:1 entails the canonical nature of this material in the title in Psalm 18. (3) The standard phrase לַמְנַצֵּחַ (“For the director of music”) is embedded in the canonical text of Habakkuk at 3:19. Again, it seems that the canonical nature of לַמְנַצֵּחַ in Habakkuk 3:19 entails the canonical nature of this material in its occurrences in the titles of the various psalms.
Mark D. Futato, Interpreting the Psalms: An Exegetical Handbook, ed. David M. Howard Jr., Handbooks for Old Testament Exegesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic & Professional, 2007), 120.​

 

[Van]

My position is that the preponderance of evidence leads to the conclusion that the titles should be considered canonical. They are as much a part of the Hebrew text as are the titles in 2 Samuel 22:1, Isaiah 38:9, and Habakkuk 3:1, or the editorial notes in Proverbs 10:1, 22:17, and 24:23. The ancient tradition of the Masoretes accents the titles along with the text and thus does not separate the titles from the rest of the text. And the New Testament is at times willing to base a theological argument on information in a title (see Acts 2:29–31). Authenticity does not, however, require a given title to have been written by the original poet (Kidner 1973a:33 and Longman 1995:208 n. 22), any more than it requires Deuteronomy 34:5–8 to have been written by Moses. Authenticity as used here means the titles record accurate information with regard to the particular psalm.
Mark D. Futato, “The Book of Psalms,” in Cornerstone Biblical Commentary, Vol 7: The Book of Psalms, The Book of Proverbs (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2009), 5.​

Although ancient but not original, the titles are part of the canonical text for several reasons: (1) The New Testament at times treats the titles as Scripture and builds arguments on this material (see Mark 12:35–37; Acts 2:29–35; 13:35–37). (2) The title to Psalm 18 is embedded in the canonical text of 2 Samuel at 22:1. It seems that the canonical nature of this material in 2 Samuel 22:1 entails the canonical nature of this material in the title in Psalm 18. (3) The standard phrase לַמְנַצֵּחַ (“For the director of music”) is embedded in the canonical text of Habakkuk at 3:19. Again, it seems that the canonical nature of לַמְנַצֵּחַ in Habakkuk 3:19 entails the canonical nature of this material in its occurrences in the titles of the various psalms.
Mark D. Futato, Interpreting the Psalms: An Exegetical Handbook, ed. David M. Howard Jr., Handbooks for Old Testament Exegesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic & Professional, 2007), 120.​

1) We agree the titles are uninspired additions for clarification.

2) We disagree the titles are old and “apocrypha” but not canonical.

3) I did not understand how Mark 12:35-37, Acts 2:29-35, and Acts 13:26-37 treats the titles as scripture.

4) I do not see how the Title of Psalm 18 reflects second Samuel, rather than Psalm 18:3.

5) I do not see how the use of the same word as in the inspired text supports the argument.