1 Samuel 16:1-13, Introduction to the Psalms (2)

There have been people who deny the Davidic authorship of Psalms.  I want to discuss this today, not because I think the question deserves the time or effort, but because it gives some background on David, the sweet Psalmist of Israel.  The argument against Davidic authorship will be in italics; the response in regular print.

The principle arguments in rejecting the claims of Davidic authorship:

i)      Some of the Psalms attributed to David speak of the king in the 3rd person rather than in the 2nd person.  This has no substance.  We will argue later that the Psalms are an instruction for Solomon and later Davidic kings.  If David speaks of himself in the 3^rd person it is because he is talking about the “kingship.”  Further, this is not an unusual or confusing style of writing, to speak of oneself in an objective rather than subjective manner.

ii)   Some Psalms attributed to David allegedly refer to Israel's sanctuary as a temple structure already built (e.g. 5,27,28,63,68,69,101,138), even though there was no temple until Solomon.  This is a misunderstanding of the term.  "Sanctuary" is used of the tabernacle (Ex 28:43), "the house of the Lord" (Josh 6:24), "the house of God" (Judges 18:31), and the "temple" (1 Sam 1:9; 3:3.)  He also uses terms that could NOT apply to Solomon's temple (e.g. "booth" and "tent" in Ps 27).

iii)            Some of the Psalms attributed to David contain Aramaisms which indicate late post-Exilic authorship.  The assumption was that words of Aramaic background indicated a later time in Israel, perhaps Hezekiah’s time or later.  But this argument no longer carries any weight, as these “Aramaisms” can be attributed to a better understanding of David situations.  For one thing, David reigned over a nation that was influenced by many nations and cultures around them.  So it is no surprise that his Psalms might have “Aramaisms.”  In addition, given that the Psalms continued to be collected into the Persian time, when Aramaic was predominant, it would be no surprise if the copyists might have found it necessary to include forms that made the Psalms understandable.

iv) The historical David could hardly have found leisure to compose poetry because. his life was so filled w/practical affairs; nor would he have had the inclination to such refined cultural pursuit.  The truth is, when you read the historical account of David’s life and reign, he had poetic ability (2 Sam. 1:19-27; 3:33f; 23:1-7; 22).  Furthermore, from 1 Sam. 16:13, “the Spirit of the LORD came mightily upon David from that day forward.”  Those who push this idea are quite possibly unfamiliar either with David’s natural ability or the power of the Holy Spirit.

It is worth noting that the NT repeatedly refers to David as the author of the Psalms quoted by Christ and the apostles.  To reject Davidic authorship is to reject the testimony of Christ.  Enough said!