Pseudepigrapha

Psalm of Solomon 4 is labeled a dialogue (Διαλογὴ) although not in the sense of a conversation between Solomon and the hypocrite. The Psalm stands in the “two ways” tradition. It begins with a stunning condemnation of those who sit in the council but are “far from the Lord” and ends with a blessing on “those who fear the Lord in their innocence” (4:23).

The target of the psalmist are the profane “who sit in the council of the devout” (v. 1). The writer uses the word βέβηλος to describe these people, a word used in the Pastoral Epistles for the “pointless and empty talk” of elderly women (1 Tim 4:7, Titus 1:9). Paul warns Timothy to avoid this kind of frivolous talk (1 Tim 6:20, 2 Tim 2:16). The psalmist says these people are “excessive in words, excessive in appearance above everyone else.” They are harsh in their “condemnation of sinners at judgment” (v. 2) and they destroy with “agitating words” (4:12). The psalmist thinks these profane people are trying to impress people with “deeds of ridicule and contempt” (4:7, 19).

The council (συνέδριον) may refer to the Sanhedrin, the ruling council in Jerusalem. R. B. Wright considers this a strong possibility (OTP 2:655, note c), although the word can refer to any gathered council (a local synagogue, for example). At the very least, the psalmist has in mind aristocratic leadership who abuse their position to enrich themselves by oppression the poor and needy. In this condemnation, the writer stands on the foundation of the Deuteronomy and the Hebrew prophets. For example, this person is eager to take the home of the poor person and to scatter the orphans (4:9-10), reminiscent of Micah 2:1-2. These hypocrites “deceitfully quote the Law” (4:8) and condemn people for the very same sins they practice (4:3).

Verses 3-5 and 9-13 list out the offenses of these profane council members. Some of these refer to their judgments in the assembly. In 4:3 their hand is the first against a condemned man, they are zealous to render a harsh judgment. This cruelty is mentioned by Josephus. He described the high priest Ananus as “a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews” (with reference to the execution of James, Ant, 20.9.1, cited by Wright). This zeal is also clear from the New Testament both in the execution of Jesus and Paul’s zealous activity on behalf of the Sanhedrin (Acts 8:1-3, Gal 1:13-14).  Other offense may be standard attacks on one’s enemies. For example, eying women indiscriminately (4:4, 5b) and swearing falsely when signing contracts (4:4).

The psalmist calls upon God to judge the hypocrites (4:6-8, 14-22). He calls on God to expose their hidden deeds to ridicule and contempt (4:7-8) and to drive these profane men out of the “presence of the righteous” (4:8).

Like the canonical Psalms, the writer of this psalm calls on God to destroy the hypocrite (employing a series verbs in the optative). Like Psalm 109:6-15, this profane man is to have no legacy: “May his old age be in lonely childlessness until his removal” (4:18). Like a criminal the psalmist calls on God to judge the hypocrite like a criminal, “May the flesh of those who try to impress people be scattered by wild animals, and the bones of the criminals (lie) dishonored out in the sun. Let crows peck out the eyes of the hypocrites, for they disgracefully empty many people’s houses and greedily scatter (them).” That an enemy of God would become “food for the birds” appears in Psalm 79:2, but also Ezekiel 39:17-20.

Ultimately, this psalm calls on God to separate the hypocrite from the devout. The verb used in 4:24 (ἐξαίρω) has the sense of driving someone away from a group. Paul used the verb in 1 Cor 5:13 when he demands the Corinthians drive out the incestuous young man. This theme of separating the righteous from the unrighteous is common in the teaching of Jesus, especially in Matthew’s Gospel. In the parable of the wheat and the weeds the righteous and unrighteous (Matt 13:24-30). At the conclusion of the Olivet Discourse, the sheep are separated from the goats (Matt 25:31-46).

The final three verses are a confession in faith in a beatitude form: “Blessed are those who fear the Lord in their innocence, the Lord will save them” (4:23-25). The form of the saying in 4:24 is identical to the beatitudes in Matthew 5 (using μακάριος in a verbless clause), but the form appears in the Hebrew Bible as well.

Once again the Psalms of Solomon resonate with the New Testament, especially with the teaching of Jesus in Matthew. Jesus condemns the hypocrisy of the Pharisees (Matt 23) and warns his followers they will need to deal with these hypocrites until the end of the age when God will separate them from the righteous.

This psalm reflects a “two ways” ethic found in Second Temple wisdom literature. Building on the covenant renewal in Deuteronomy 30:11-20, there are only two ways the people can go, either toward life or toward death. If Israel follows the Law, they will be blessed and have peace and material prosperity. However, if they do not follow the Law, they will be cursed and not experience peace and prosperity. Psalm 1 contrasts two kinds of people, the righteous person and the sinner. The righteous is like a tree planted beside water (prosperous and bearing fruit), but the sinner is like a bush growing in the desert, barely surviving and never bearing fruit.

The Psalmist contrasts the righteous (3.3-8) with the sinner (3.9-12). The righteous man has confidence in God and constantly searches his house to remove unintentional sin. He atones for ignorant sin by fasting and humbling his soul.

Psalms of Solomon 3.5-8  The righteous stumbles and proves the Lord right; he falls and watches for what God will do about him; he looks to where his salvation comes from. 6 The confidence of the righteous (comes) from God their savior; sin after sin does not visit the house of the righteous. 7 The righteous constantly searches his house, to remove his unintentional sins. 8 He atones for (sins of) ignorance by fasting and humbling his soul, and the Lord will cleanse every devout person and his house.

In verse 8, the Lord cleanses “every devout person” (ὅσιος). R. B. Wright comments this noun is related to the Hasidim (οἱ Ασιδαῖοι), the righteous ones who supported the Maccabean revolt (1 Macc 2:24, 7:13) but broke with the Hasmoneans and likely developed into the Sadducees, Pharisees and Essenes. Perhaps this is a hint of the origin of the Psalm. Early studies of the Psalms of Solomon identified the author(s) as either Pharisees or Essene and Wright’s introduction in OTP leans that direction.

But Charlesworth adds a paragraph to the introduction warning against labeling the Psalms as either Pharisaic or Essene because so little is known about the Pharisees prior to A.D. 70 (OTP 2:642, see note 8). Since some scholars have claimed the Psalms of Solomon were written by Pharisees, a paragraph like PsSol 3.5-8 is used to develop the views of the Pharisees. But as Charlesworth comments, this is a kind of circular reasoning. Neither Anthony J. J. Saldarini (Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees in Palestinian Society, Eerdmans 2001) and the collection of essays edited by Jacob Neusner  Bruce D. Chilton (In Quest of the Historical Pharisees, Baker, 2007) make little or no reference to the Psalms of Solomon.

But the description of the devout in this section does resonate with the New Testament. The author of this Psalm says the righteous person (δίκαιος) is not sinless. They stumble, but they know their salvation comes from the Lord. They are constantly looking for unintentional sins and fast in order to “atone for sins of ignorance.” Here the verb ἐξιλάσκομαι is used.

The word does not appear in the New Testament, but the cognate ἱλάσκομαι is used in Jesus’s parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector. The tax collector is devastated by his own guilt and cries out to the Lord, “have mercy (ἱλάσκομαι) on me a sinner” (Luke 18:13). In the Parable, the Pharisee boasts in his fasting and careful tithing, but the tax collector “having been made righteous” (a participle from δικαιόω). Someone who had Psalm of Solomon 3:5-8 in mind would have expected the Pharisee to have received mercy since he was carefully examining his life in order to “remove unintentional sins.” Yet Jesus reverses that expectation and the sinner receives mercy and went away from the Temple having been made righteous (δεδικαιωμένος).

Although it is impossible to state dogmatically this Psalm reflects the attitude of the Pharisee in the early first century, it does resonate with the Pharisee of Luke 18.

Psalm of Solomon 2 is a lament for Jerusalem after Pompey captured the city in 63 B.C. Although his name is not specifically mentioned, the author of the psalm clearly has Pompey in mind. He is called an “arrogant sinner” who brought battering rams against the walls of the Temple (2:1). According to Josephus, the city surrendered to the Romans but the Temple itself was captured. Pompey therefore brought “mechanical engines, and battering-rams from Tyre” (Antiq. 14.4.2).

Once inside the Temple, “They trampled it down (καταπατέω) with their shoes in arrogance” (PsSol 2:2). This description is a possible allusion to 1 Maccabees 3:51, “Your sanctuary is trampled down (καταπατέω) and profaned, and your priests mourn in humiliation” (RSV). In verse 19, the arrogant Gentiles dragged the beauty of the Temple “down from the throne of glory.” According to Josephus, Pompey entered the Temple and “saw all that which it was unlawful for any other men to see, but only for the high priests” (Antiq. 14.4.2).

PsSol 2:20-21 alludes to Isaiah 3:24 by personifying Jerusalem as a beautiful woman who has gone into mourning: “She put on sackcloth instead of beautiful clothes, a rope around her head instead of a crown. She took off the wreath of glory which God had put on her; in dishonor her beauty was thrown to the ground.” Since Isaiah was looking forward to the fall of Jerusalem Babylon is the “arrogant sinner” who desecrated the Temple. The writer of this psalm once again sees the Jerusalem of his day as a ravished, enslaved woman driven into exile.

Like 1 Maccabees, the author of this psalm blames the disaster on the “sons of Jerusalem” who have profaned (μιαίνω, 1 Macc 1:46, 63) and defiled (βεβηλόω, 1 Macc 1:43) the holy place with lawless acts. Although this lawlessness is not defined, verses 11-13 describe the sons and daughters of Jerusalem as prostitutes, a common metaphor for idolatry in the Old Testament. Psalm of Solomon 8 has an extended condemnation of the priesthood in control of the Temple, “plundered the sanctuary of God” (Ps.Sol 8:12).

Based on these observations, it is not difficult to see why some scholars thought this description referred to Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the “arrogant sinner” who profaned the Temple. His audacity is well-known from Daniel 11 and it led to the Maccabean Revolt. In this view, sons of Jerusalem who were established by the gentiles (2:11-14) are the Hasmoneans. Even if the arrogant sinner is Pompey, then the sons of Jerusalem are still the last of the Hasmoneans, perhaps even Herod the Great (who certainly can be described as committing lawlessness). It is also possible Herod the Great is the psalmist’s target, if the desecration of the Temple is Herod’s extensive expansion of the Temple courts. However, the judgment on the arrogant sinner in verses 26-27 does not resonate with Herod’s death.

Considering the reference to the death of Pompey in 2:26-7, it seems more likely the author of PsSol 2 intentionally calls to mind the devastating loss of the Temple in 586 B.C. as well as the arrogance of Antiochus to describe a more recent desecration of the Temple, that of the Romans in 63 B.C. Biblical texts often look back to the events of the past to describe the realities of the present, so it is no surprise this anonymous author builds his psalm on the same model.

Like a biblical psalm, the author addresses God and calls on him to exact vengeance on the arrogant sinner who trampled the sanctuary. God ought to act quickly to repay their arrogance.

Psalm of Solomon 2:25-27 And I did not wait long until God showed me his insolence pierced on the mountains of Egypt, more despised than the smallest thing on earth and sea. 27 His body was carried about on the waves in much shame, and there was no one to bury (him), for he (God) had despised him with contempt.

The dishonorable death of the arrogant sinner seems to be a clear allusion to the assassination of Pompey in 45 B.C.

Cassius Dio, Roman History 42: Although he had subdued the entire Roman sea, he perished on it; and although he had once been, as the saying is, “master of a thousand ships” he was destroyed in a tiny boat near Egypt and in a sense by Ptolemy, whose father he had once restored from exile to that land and to his kingdom… Thus Pompey, who previously had been considered the most powerful of the Romans, so that he even received the nickname of Agamemnon, was now butchered like one of the lowest of the Egyptians themselves.

The final verses of the psalm are a confession of faith in the Lord (2:33-37). The Lord has mercy on those who fear him. The Lord will distinguish “between the righteous and the sinner” and “repay sinners forever according to their actions.” Knowing God had brought Pompey to a dishonorable end would be of great comfort to the readers of this psalm. If God has acted in history to bring down a tyrant like Pompey, then he will again bring down the present tyrant.

The collection known as the Psalms of Solomon are among the more important pieces of literature in the expansions collection since they are the reflections of “devout Jews to the capture of Jerusalem by the Romans in the first century B.C” (OTP 2:640). The eighteen psalms are preserved in both Greek and Syriac manuscripts dating as early as the tenth century A.D. The eighteen Psalms of Solomon are mentioned in canon a list the fifth century A.D. Codex Alexandrinus, although the text of the Psalms are missing from that codex. The psalms seem to have been used by the author of 2 Baruch, implying they were written before the end of the first century. The psalms refer to an invasion of the land, so they may be dated as early as Antiochus IV Epiphanies, but Pompey (in 63 B.C.) and Titus (in A.D. 70) are also possibilities. Herod the Great is also a possibility although he was not exactly an invader from a foreign land when he took Palestine by force in the mid-30s B.C.

The consensus view, however, is that the invader in the Psalms of Solomon is Pompey. This implies a date after 48 B.C. since PsSol. 2.26-27 alludes to the assassination of Pompey. While on board a ship near Egypt, he was beheaded and his body thrown overboard.

PsSol 2.26-27 And I did not wait long until God showed me his insolence pierced on the mountains of Egypt, more despised than the smallest thing on earth and sea. 27 His body was carried about on the waves in much shame, and there was no one to bury (him), for he (God) had despised him with contempt.

R. B. Wright therefore suggests a range of dates from 45 to 70 B.C. for the datable Psalms. Since some do not allude events which can be dated, they may come from another period and were added to the collection when it reached its final form.

The Psalms of Solomon refer to people who call themselves “the pious” or “the righteous” who have fled to the desert. The temptation to identify the group as Essene ought to be resisted since the desert is often a place of refuge in the biblical material. If Roman invasion is the occasion of the Psalms, the invasion is blamed on the rivalries of the Hasmonean priests (Hyrcanus II, Aristobulus II, and Antigonus). They are blamed for defiling the sacrifices (2:1-3) and laying waste to the throne of David (17:6). The Hasmoneans are therefore corrupt and illegal kings.

The usual polemic accusations are made (immorality, breach of purity, theft, etc.)  The righteous have suffered, but they have not been destroyed. They are waiting for God’s judgment which will vindicate their suffering, although it may not be in this life. E. P. Sanders considered this as a rather vague belief in an afterlife (Sanders, Judaism, 454). In PsSol. 3:11 “The destruction of the dead is forever and he will not be remembered when God visits the righteous. This is the share of the sinners forever, but those who fear the Lord shall rise up to eternal life and there life shall be in the Lord’s light, and it shall never end.” Notice the righteous will rise to an eternal life of some sort. (John Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination, 143 also lists 13:11, 14:3, 15:13 and 16:1-3 as implying an afterlife.)

What is unique in the Psalms of Solomon is a much more robust view of the Messiah. In Psalm 17 the messiah is described as a new Davidic king who “will destroy the lawless nations.” The twelve tribes of Israel will be restored to the land and the Gentiles will come from the ends of the earth to see the glory of the messiah.

Psalm 17 is the most important for New Testament context since it serves as an indication of messianic expectations which were current only shortly before the time of Jesus. Rome is viewed as a foreign invader who will be removed when the messiah comes. If these sorts of messianic expectations were popular in Galilee in the 20’s A.D. then we have good reason to read Jesus’ teaching as intentionally messianic and we are able to understand some of the confusion and disappointment among the Jews who heard him teach. One might speculate as to the motives of Judas for betraying Jesus. If Judas was thinking something like what we read in PsSol. 17 then it is possible he was trying to “force Messiah’s hand” into striking out against Rome and the Temple establishment. Jesus seemed to be claiming to be the Messiah, but he did not seem to be the Davidic messiah expected in Psalm 17.

From an ethical perspective, the Psalms have a very high view of proper behavior and morality, despite only mentioning the Law in 4:8 and 14:1-3. One must live a life pleasing to God. This requires confession of sin and humble acceptance of God’s discipline (3:4; 10:2; 14:1; OTP 2:645). This is similar to Hebrews 12, which describes God’s discipline as that of a good, heavenly father.