Psalm 72:20 says, “The prayers of David son of Jesse are ended,” yet Psalm 86 is explicitly titled “A Prayer of David.” The verse therefore cannot mean that no later Davidic prayer exists anywhere in the completed Book of Psalms.
A common explanation is that Psalm 72:20 preserves an earlier closing notice connected with a Davidic collection. Another scholarly proposal is that it may be a scribal colophon that once stood at the end of a physical scroll. The exact history is debated, but both explanations account for why the statement can remain in the Psalter even though later Davidic prayers follow.
What Does Psalm 72:20 Actually Say?
The Hebrew reads:
כָּלּוּ תְפִלּוֹת דָּוִד בֶּן־יִשָׁי
Kallu tefillot David ben-Yishai
A natural translation is:
“The prayers of David son of Jesse are ended.”
The verb kallu means that something has been completed or has come to an end. Tefillot means “prayers.”
Read in isolation, the line sounds as though Davidic prayer has reached its final point.
But Psalm 72 is not the final psalm in the completed Psalter, and David’s name appears again later.
More importantly, Psalm 86 carries the superscription:
“A Prayer of David.”
That makes Psalm 86 the clearest challenge to a literal reading of Psalm 72:20.
Why Is Psalm 86 Such a Strong Counterexample?
The wording matters.
Psalm 72:20 says that the prayers of David are ended.
Psalm 86 is headed:
“A Prayer of David.”
The connection is stronger than simply finding another later psalm marked “of David.” Psalm 86 uses the same prayer category that Psalm 72:20 appears to close.
If Psalm 72:20 meant, “There can be no more prayers attributed to David anywhere after this point,” Psalm 86 would directly conflict with it.
The final form of the Psalter itself shows that this is not how the statement functions.
A better way to understand the line is that it marks the end of an earlier unit of Davidic material rather than the end of every Davidic prayer in the entire Psalter.
For comparison, PsalmWisdom’s study of who wrote Psalm 27 examines how an individual Davidic superscription functions. Psalm 72:20 raises a different question: how Davidic compositions came to stand within larger collections.
Does Psalm 72:20 Mark the End of an Earlier Davidic Collection?
That has long been a common explanation.
A dense concentration of psalms associated with David appears before Psalm 72. Book I is overwhelmingly Davidic in its superscriptions, and Davidic material continues through much of Book II.
Psalm 72:20 can therefore be read as an older closing statement preserved after a body of Davidic prayers.
In this view, the line means something closer to:
“The Davidic prayers in this collection end here.”
It does not mean:
“No later psalm in the completed Psalter can be attributed to David.”
This kind of closing statement is often described as a colophon.
A colophon is a notice attached to the end of a text, collection, or manuscript unit. It can mark completion, identify contents, or preserve information about how a text was transmitted.
If Psalm 72:20 originally belonged to a smaller collection that was later incorporated into a larger Psalter, the line could remain even after more Davidic material was placed beyond it.
That would explain why Psalm 86 can still be called “A Prayer of David.”
Why Does This Closing Notice Appear After Psalm 72?
Psalm 72 creates another puzzle because its heading is connected with Solomon.
The Hebrew superscription contains li-Shelomoh, commonly rendered “Of Solomon” or “For Solomon.”
Yet verse 20 closes with:
“The prayers of David son of Jesse are ended.”
The verse therefore does not function naturally as a simple authorship statement about Psalm 72 itself.
Its placement makes more sense if it is serving an editorial or scribal role connected with the material that precedes it.
Psalm 72:18–19 also contains a doxology:
“Blessed be the LORD God, the God of Israel…”
Such doxologies appear at major divisions of the Psalter.
Psalm 72:20 comes immediately after that closing praise, which strengthens the impression that it functions as a boundary notice rather than as part of Psalm 72’s main poetic argument.
Is the Earlier-Collection Explanation Certain?
No.
The evidence strongly suggests that Psalm 72:20 should not be read as an absolute statement about every later Davidic psalm, but the precise history behind the verse remains disputed.
One proposal is that the line marked the conclusion of an earlier Davidic collection.
Another, developed by scholar David Willgren Davage, is that Psalm 72:20 may be a “frozen colophon”—a scribal closing notice that originally stood at the end of a physical scroll and remained after that material was incorporated into the larger Psalter.
His study of Psalm 72:20 as a possible frozen colophon highlights why the verse should not automatically be treated as a simple editorial statement saying that all Davidic material ends here.
The distinction matters.
The Bible itself does not explain the compilation process behind Psalm 72:20. It does not identify the editor, describe an earlier scroll, or tell readers exactly when the notice was added.
The safest conclusion is therefore limited:
Psalm 72:20 appears to preserve an earlier closing notice, but whether that notice originally closed a collection, a scroll, or another textual unit cannot be established with certainty.
Does the Septuagint Translate Psalm 72:20 Differently?
There is one interesting textual detail.
The Hebrew uses tefillot, “prayers.”
The Greek Septuagint renders the corresponding word with hymnoi, meaning “hymns.”
That difference does not remove the basic problem, because the Greek text still presents the statement as a conclusion connected with David.
However, it shows that ancient readers already encountered the line through slightly different terminology.
The Hebrew wording remains especially important for comparison with Psalm 86 because Psalm 86 is explicitly identified as a tefillah—a prayer—of David.
That lexical link is one reason Psalm 86 is such a decisive comparison.
Are There Other Davidic Psalms After Psalm 72?
Yes.
Psalm 86 is the strongest example because its heading explicitly calls it “A Prayer of David.”
Other later psalms also carry Davidic superscriptions, including Psalms 101 and 103.
That is enough to show that the completed Psalter does not treat Psalm 72:20 as a rule forbidding later Davidic material.
A long list is unnecessary.
Psalm 86 already establishes the central point: the phrase “the prayers of David are ended” cannot mean that every Davidic prayer in the final Psalter ends at Psalm 72.
Does Psalm 72:20 Contradict Psalm 86?
No contradiction is necessary once Psalm 72:20 is understood as an earlier closing notice rather than an absolute statement about the completed Psalter.
Psalm 72:20 can mark the conclusion of an earlier textual unit connected with David.
Psalm 86 can then appear later in the enlarged collection and still carry the heading “A Prayer of David.”
Scholars continue to debate exactly what kind of earlier unit Psalm 72:20 once concluded. It may have marked a Davidic collection, or it may preserve an older scribal colophon associated with a scroll.
What the final Psalter makes clear is simpler:
Psalm 72:20 does not mean that Davidic prayer disappears after Psalm 72.
Psalm 86 proves that directly.
The verse is best read as evidence that the Book of Psalms preserves traces of earlier stages of collection and arrangement, even after those materials became part of the larger Psalter readers know today.
