The titles or superscriptions of the Psalms

[rlvaughn]

...how do you view them?

By titles or superscriptions, I mean the information that comes after the psalm number and before the 1st verse in English Bibles. For example, Psalm 3 has a note that says “A Psalm of David, when he fled from Absalom his son.”

There are 150 psalms in the Old Testament book of Psalms. 34 of the psalms carry no introductory inscription whatsoever. 116 of them have some kind of title or superscription. 16 of these 116 have an inscription which is only a general reference such as “psalm” or “prayer.” 100 of these 116 psalms mention the name of an author – or in some cases possibly a person it was written “to” or “for”. Of the superscribed Psalms:

• 73 of these are “of David.”
• 12 of these are “of Asaph.”
• 11 of these are “for the sons of Korah.”
• 2 of these are “for Solomon.”
• 1 of these is “of Moses.”
• 1 of these is “of Ethan the Ezrahite”

In addition to these, others are mentioned. “Maschil of Heman the Ezrahite” is mentioned in one of the psalms that is “for the sons of Korah.” “To Jeduthun” is mentioned in two of the psalms of David and one of the psalms of Asaph. King Saul is mentioned in the superscriptions of 5 psalms – Psalm 18, Psalm 52, Psalm 54, Psalm 57, and Psalm 59.

There are lots of variations about what these superscriptions are, but the views seem to break down into two main categories -- either they are inspired and important, or they are later additions that may or may not be helpful.

What think ye of them?

 

[Deacon]

The Hebrew Scriptures are numbered differently from our English translations.

It usually counts the superscription as the first verse.

I view them as additions to the text but historically important, providing early commentary, connections ancient scholars observed.



Another question to answer - Inspired or uninspired?

Rob

 

[Squire Robertsson]

The titles and superscriptions are counted as verse 1 in the Russian Synodical Bible.

 

[TCassidy]

Inspired or uninspired?

Probably uninspired but useful, historic opinion of the Mesors and Rabbis.

 

[Deacon]

I appreciate the Holman Christian Standard Bible's translation of the common superscription seen in Psalm 26:1 (BHS) לְדָוִד [david]

Many translations simply translate this, "Of David".

Perfectly acceptable.​

The HSCB's translation is "Davidic"

Excellent!​

IMO, this more fully embraces the question of authorship.
Was this written by David or simply about him?

Unfortunately the recent Christian Standard Bible conforms to "Of David"

Rob

 

[rlvaughn]

The Hebrew Scriptures are numbered differently from our English translations.

It usually counts the superscription as the first verse.

I think this changed with the Geneva Bible, was like the Hebrew before that. Haven't had an opportunity to look at copies of several of them.

 

[rlvaughn]

..."Davidic"...more fully embraces the question of authorship

Looking at the dictionary, I'd say "of" and the suffix "-ic" have pretty the same semantic range of meaning. The difference might be more in the connotation the average American reader would put on it -- IOW, more likely to read "of David" as meaning "written by David" and less likely to read "Davidic" that way.

Inspired or uninspired?

I'd say inspired.

 

[Deacon]

The difference might be more in the connotation the average American reader would put on it -- IOW, more likely to read "of David" as meaning "written by David" and less likely to read "Davidic" that way.

Exactly my point!

The Hebrew scholars of the past obviously considered the titles inspired when they added numbers to the text.
Christian scholars of ages past, not so sure.

The Septuagint adds even more titles to the list of Psalms with titles.

Rob

 

[rlvaughn]

Exactly my point!

My point is that studying the word "of" and suffix "-ic" would lead us to basically the same conclusion.

On the other hand, it seems to me that at some of the Psalms should be understood as written by David. For example, within the text of 2 Samuel 22:1, we have the same inscription as Psalm 18, which attributes the words to David. In Luke 20:42 Jesus refers to Psalms 110 and says “David himself saith in the book of Psalms.” Only in the superscription and nowhere else in the text of the psalm relate the psalm to David. Both Peter and Paul cite Psalm 16 (v. 10; in Acts 2:29-32 and Acts 13:35-36), making the point that David himself was speaking, but that he was not speaking of himself. Only in the superscription and nowhere else in the text of the psalm relate the psalm to David.

There may be other cases where we considered the inscriptions as part of the inspired text. Foe example:

• Habakkuk 3:1 “A prayer of Habakkuk the prophet upon Shigionoth.”
• Habakkuk 3:19 “…To the chief singer on my stringed instruments.”

The Hebrew scholars of the past obviously considered the titles inspired when they added numbers to the text.
Christian scholars of ages past, not so sure.

Yes, that seems right about the Hebrew scholars. Haven't made a comparison of Christian scholars of the past, other than randomly noticing that some thought one way and some the other. If I am correct that the Geneva Bible was the first to cordon these, it would be interesting to see if that was their reasoning.

The Septuagint adds even more titles to the list of Psalms with titles.

The Septuagint (by my count, if correct) has 83 superscriptions attributed to David, as opposed to 73 in the Hebrew and our English Bibles. [Haggai and Zechariah are mentioned in 5.] This does muddy the waters somewhat. In the copy of the Septuagint I have, printed by Hendrickson, I believe every Psalm has some kind of title (simply Alleluia on some).

 

[rlvaughn]

Christian scholars of ages past, not so sure.

Looks like the consensus is that Augustine considered them inspired, though I have not found it in so many words. In his exposition of Psalm 60 he speaks of "the Prophetic Spirit in the Psalms' titles." On Psalm 59 he says:

As the Scripture is wont to set mysteries of the Psalms on the titles, and to deck the brow of a Psalm with the high announcement of a Mystery, in order that we that are about to go in may know (when as it were upon the door-post we have read what within is doing) either of whom the house is, or who is the owner of that estate: so also in this Psalm there has been written a title, of a title.

On the other hand, John Calvin seems to dismiss them as uninspired additions (although he usually [always?] comments on them). On Psalm 22 he writes:

This inscription is obscure; but interpreters have needlessly perplexed themselves in seeking after I know not what sublime mystery in a matter of small importance...nor do I see how the inscription bears any relation to the subject-matter of the psalm.

Spurgeon's advice seems good:

With regard to the authority of the TITLES, it becomes us to speak with diffidence, considering the very opposite opinions which have been offered upon this subject by scholars of equal excellence. (Treasury of David, on Psalm 3)

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Personally, I have always considered them as part of the inspired text, and comment on them briefly whenever I preach on the Psalms. The introduction to Psalm 60 is particularly helpful IMO.

 

[rlvaughn]

Personally, I have always considered them as part of the inspired text, and comment on them briefly whenever I preach on the Psalms. The introduction to Psalm 60 is particularly helpful IMO.

I agree. Curiously, I grew up in churches that would have considered them inspired yet preachers might not read them or mention them. Of course, this might have meant some folks just weren't sure what to do with most of them, but this was an inconsistency nevertheless.