Good Question, Nehemia Gordon!

 

During one of the sessions on the book of Hebrews by Dr David Allen on Oct 24, 2021, someone by the name of N. Gordon posed a question about Psalm 110: 1:

”לְדָוִ֗ד מִ֫זְמ֥וֹר נְאֻ֤ם יְהוָ֨ה ׀ לַֽאדֹנִ֗י שֵׁ֥ב לִֽימִינִ֑י עַד־אָשִׁ֥ית אֹ֝יְבֶ֗יךָ הֲדֹ֣ם לְרַגְלֶֽיךָ׃“

(Psalm 110:1 HMT-W4)

https://accordance.bible/link/read/HMT-W4#Psa._110:1

        I would like to take some time to respond to Nehemia's question, which I believe that Dr Allen had done succinctly albeit the little leftover time he had. 

        Firstly, let me say that this is nothing but a superscription added to the Masoretic Text to provide some background to the psalms. 

        Secondly, as suggested by Nehemia, the literal translation of the words in Hebrew לְדָוִ֗ד מִ֫זְמ֥וֹר is 'a psalm to David'. However, this is only half correct. 

        Well, the preposition לְ means 'to'  or 'for'. But, is Nehemia's translation necessarily correct and the translation into the English Bibles 'A psalm of David' therefore erroneous?

        If we look at other psalms, we see the use of the preposition to suggest that it is not necessarily to be literally translated as 'to David' or 'for David.'  

1) Look at a few other psalms: 

        There are, in fact, 117 out of 150 psalms that carry some form of superscriptions in the Masoretic Text. I will not dwell into all the psalms or provide the statistics as this is not the focus of my blog:

        In Psalm 55:1, we have:  מַשְׂכִּ֥יל לְדָוִֽד. This same phrase also appears in Psa 53:1 and elsewhere.

        Psalm 3:1מִזְמ֥וֹר לְדָוִ֑ד is even clearer. If you look at the superscription, it says in Hebrew:

 מִזְמ֥וֹר לְדָוִ֑ד בְּ֝בָרְח֗וֹ מִפְּנֵ֤י ׀ אַבְשָׁל֬וֹם בְּנֽוֹ׃

 New American Standard Bible renders it as "A Psalm of David, when he fled from Absalom his son."

        While the literal translation would have been 'A psalm to David,' as suggested by Nehemia; however, it would not make sense if someone had written this psalm to David, and he refers to David as 'אָדֹנִ֗י' (my lord). Why?

        This leads to my second point. In this instance, the superscription is clear that it refers to David in the third person as in the two words used בְּ֝בָרְח֗וֹ and   בְּנֽוֹ (he fled from the presence of Absalom, his son). 

        Read carefully as this clearly shows that the one who wrote the superscription could not have been the same person who wrote Psalm 110 `to/for David'. 'Get it? 

        It makes no sense for us to assume that the psalmist is someone else (perhaps, his transcriber) other than David, who refers to David as 'my lord'. 

        "The LORD says to my Lord: 
“Sit at My right hand 
Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.” (Psalm 110:1) 

        Read on, and you will get the whole picture. 

2) The preposition  לְ does not only imply 'to':

        Hence, to suggest that Psalm 110:1 should be literally translated as a 'Psalm to David' may not be exactly that accurate. 

        In fact, Robert Alter, a Jewish scholar and Bible translator himself, rendered Psalm 3:1 as 'A David psalm.' This is because, as he explains:

"The traditional rendering is "a psalm of David," which tends to imply authorship. (Read on, Nehemia) The Hebrew preposition  is ambiguous (emphasis, mine). It could mean "of" or "by"; it often means "belonging to"; another common meaning is "for" or it might refer to something as loose as "in the manner of." The choice of translation is intended to preserve these ambiguous possibilities." (1) 

        Just to add to the fun, look at Psalm 56:3b, 

כִּֽי־רַבִּ֨ים לֹחֲמִ֖ים לִ֣י מָרֽוֹם׃

         How would you translate the preposition in the word לִ֣י? In this instance, the English is a richer language than Hebrew because in English, you have different prepositions which are more specific, 'for', 'to', 'against', 'by' and 'of.' 

        Put simply, because Hebrew is more of a pictorial language, when you say לִ֣י, you automatically point to yourself. And, depending on the context, it simply cannot be translated as, 'fighting for me' or 'fighting to me.'  

        In this instance, the NASB translates it correctly as: "For they are many who fight proudly against me." (Psalm 56:3b). 

        My conclusion: when you see the preposition in this usage לִ֣י in Hebrew, you have to look at the context, not simply translate it as 'to' (or even 'for') as suggested by Nehemia in his example of Psalm 103:1.  

        Alter is not a Messianic Jew who believes in Jesus, and even he prefers to render the translation as 'A David psalm' rather than literally 'A psalm to David.' 

        So, Nehemia, I have one brownie point, you just lost it to me. Wink Wink.

3)  My suggestions: 

        There are several possibilities how the translation can be rendered to the phrase לְדָוִ֗ד מִ֫זְמ֥וֹר:

        (a) A psalm according to David 

        (b) A psalm attributed to David 

        (c) A psalm belonging to David

        (d) A Davidic psalm 

        Or, as Alter puts it, "A David psalm." 

        So, what's wrong with the English translation, "A psalm of David"? 

4) Who is then the psalmist referring to?

        If David is the author of Psalm 110, it is obvious when he wrote, לַֽאדֹנִ֗י, David could not have referred to himself as 'my lord.'  He would have referred to someone else far more superior than him, as his 'lord.'

        Bearing in mind, there is a 51% chance that David the king could have someone transcribing for him, hence, even if the transcriber wrote for him, the psalm is still attributed to David, not the transcriber.

        However, to suggest that the transcriber is of any relevance is to suggest that the ghostwriter can have a voice to the autobiography that he writes for his client. As a ghostwriter myself, everything I write in an autobiography, is not about me but the client himself. He pays me to write on his behalf. So, do you get it now?

        לַֽאדֹנִ֗י therefore, refers to David addressing a third person as 'my lord', not a third-person psalmist referring to David as his 'lord.' 

 5)  שֵׁ֥ב לִֽימִינִ֑י    'sit at my right hand.'

        As pointed out by Allen in the Q&A session, is David still alive today to be seated on God's right hand? Would this be presumptuous to even imagine that David has greater prominence than Moses himself from the Jewish point of view to be invited to sit on God's right hand?

        Please read on verse 4:

 נִשְׁבַּ֤ע יְהוָ֨ה ׀ וְלֹ֥א יִנָּחֵ֗ם אַתָּֽה־כֹהֵ֥ן לְעוֹלָ֑ם עַל־דִּ֝בְרָתִ֗י מַלְכִּי־צֶֽדֶק׃

(In NASB, it says, "The LORD has sworn and will not change His mind, “You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.””) 

        David is not a priest according to the order of Melchizedek, and never was he referred to as a priest in the entire Tanakh. Ask any orthodox Jew, and you will be scorned if you suggest this to him that David is a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek forever. 

6) Come by simple faith to Christ:

        Here is a sincere invitation to simple faith in Christ. 

        Acknowledge that:

        (a) "All have sinned and come short of the glory of Christ" (Romans 3:23)

        (b) "The wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23)

        (c) “God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died    for us.” (Romans 5:8)

        (d) "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name" (John 1:12)

        (e) "knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, 1is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him." (Romans 6:9)

        Simple faith means setting aside all your years of scholarship and after you have understood your real predicament as a man of the flesh, you speak to this Jesus directly acknowledging your sin, believing that He died for you, was raised from the dead, and receive Him as your Savior and Lord.

    

Footnotes:

(1) Alter, Robert. The Hebrew Bible (Vol 3) The Writings. First. Vol. 3. 3 vols. NY: W.W. Norton & Company, 2019.

 

Original Text of the New Testament was written in Hebrew?

 

A few years ago, I was told that a Hebrew teacher from India claimed that the New Testament was originally written in Hebrew. 

        Just this week, another gentleman from Singapore made the same claim. In my follow-up discussion with him, he claims that the New Testament was written in Hebrew and Aramaic.

        Allow me to put my response to this in point form:

1) Lingua Franca 

The entire Old Testament was written in Hebrew, with the exception of certain portions in Daniel that were written in Aramaic.

However, well known manuscripts such as Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (which is based on Codex Leningradensis) and Aleppo Codex do not make any attempt to preserve the Aramaic text.

The fact that the Aramaic text is not even preserved in these manuscripts show that even the Jews themselves did not bother to preserve the original Aramaic text.

2) The Septuagint 

The entire Tanakh was translated by 70 scholars from Hebrew to Greek around 3rd Century BC. Why was Greek chosen, instead of Aramaic? 

The answer is obvious: Greek has already become the lingua franca of the day. Koine Greek (or what I call 'marketplace Greek) was already used widely during era of Jesus and the early church. The translation was necessary as Greek was the form of education that even the Jews in disapora were receiving even before Jesus' era. 

This is similar to our English language which is the lingua franca in our 21st century, while Aramaic is similar to our Chinese dialects such as Hokkien or Teo Chew.  

It is obvious that when God wanted to communicate with the nations of the then known world, He would have picked Greek, not Hebrew or Aramaic.

This is common sense that Aramaic was not an important language in those days. There could have been portions of the Bible translated into Aramaic for the specific groups of people, but Greek was still the common language that people could read and understand. 

While Jesus and His disciples may have used Aramaic in their daily conversation, the gospels and the rest of the New Testament were written in the lingua franca of the day: koine Greek.

Meanwhile, Hebrew was confined to only the synagogues and the Temple during Jesus' lifetime. Put it in the modern context, Hebrew is like Arabic to the Muslims.

For that reason, we have many thousands of early Greek manuscripts compared to what some claim to be the 'original' Hebrew or Aramaic New Testament.

While there may be claims that the early church fathers had cited some Hebrew New Testament manuscripts, the truth remains that God did not bother to bring it to the forefront until recent years.

3) Jewish scholar Nehemias Gordon has also dealt with this kind of claim that the New Testament was written in Hebrew. Although he is not a Christian, Gordon has put it clearly that there is no such thing. He spent a few thousand dollars to purchase a manuscript and studied it. Very quickly, he concluded that it was fake.  

4) What about Hebrew New Testament that we have now?

Bible.Is app, for example, has a Modern Hebrew version of 1995.  It has the New Testament translated from Greek into Hebrew.

I use this occasionally but I would not take it as the original text. It is as good a translation as translations into any other languages. If I want to find the original words used in the Old Testament, I would refer to the Hebrew text, but for the New Testament, it would be Greek.  

If I teach Hebrew to a group of believers, I would use the Hebrew Old Testament as the text, but I would treat the New Testament in Hebrew as just another translation.

5) Repeatedly making his false claims.

Before I decided to block this gentleman from Singapore, he kept repeating one or two statements. I do not understand his intention, whether he was trying to print screen something and show people that I believed what he said about the New Testament.  

However, I think this guy has been so conditioned after 17 years in the Hebraic Movement that he no longer could see the truth any more. 

 

 

 

HEBRAIC ROOTS: Making Sense of the Hebraic Roots: A Messianic Jew's Perspectives

Please return to this blogpost for any updates, including the video recording or notes, if any.

This public lecture is hosted by Malaysia Baptist Theological Seminary (MBTS) together with Explain International

    Please register: https://tinyurl.com/hebraic2021

For more information, email silkrgn@gmail.com 

Rev David Zadok 

will be sharing about the Hebraic Roots:

Making Sense of the Hebraic Roots: A Messianic Jew's Perspectives

Date:  Dec 1, 2021 (Wednesday)

Time: 8pm-10pm (Malaysia) (GMT +8)

Use 

http://www.thetimezoneconverter.com/ 

to convert to your local time.

Background:

David Zadok is both the pastor of Grace and Truth congregation and the director of HaGefen Publishing in Israel. He was born in Israel, and grew up in Iran.

David serves on the board of National Pastors and Elders in Israel, as well as Israel College of the Bible and the Church’s Mission to the Jews, and the first Messianic Research Center.

He has been serving in the same church, Grace and Truth for 31 years as an elder, and pastoring it for the last 9 years.

David is married to Esther (Eti) and they have three children, Maayan (24), Hadas (21) and Meidan (16).

Beautiful Psalm 54:1-4

 

Psa. 54:1‏ לַמְנַצֵּ֥חַ בִּנְגִינֹ֗ת מַשְׂכִּ֥יל לְדָוִֽד׃

‎Psa. 54:2‏ בְּב֣וֹא הַ֭זִּיפִים וַיֹּאמְר֣וּ לְשָׁא֑וּל הֲלֹ֥א דָ֝וִ֗ד מִסְתַּתֵּ֥ר עִמָּֽנוּ׃

‎Psa. 54:3‏ אֱ֭לֹהִים בְּשִׁמְךָ֣ הוֹשִׁיעֵ֑נִי וּבִגְבוּרָתְךָ֥ תְדִינֵֽנִי׃

‎Psa. 54:4‏ אֱ֭לֹהִים שְׁמַ֣ע תְּפִלָּתִ֑י הַ֝אֲזִ֗ינָה לְאִמְרֵי־פִֽי׃

‎Psa. 54:5‏ כִּ֤י זָרִ֨ים ׀ קָ֤מוּ עָלַ֗י וְֽ֭עָרִיצִים בִּקְשׁ֣וּ נַפְשִׁ֑י לֹ֤א שָׂ֨מוּ אֱלֹהִ֖ים לְנֶגְדָּ֣ם סֶֽלָה׃

‎Psa. 54:6‏ הִנֵּ֣ה אֱ֭לֹהִים עֹזֵ֣ר לִ֑י אֲ֝דֹנָ֗י בְּֽסֹמְכֵ֥י נַפְשִֽׁי׃

‎Psa. 54:7‏ יָשׁוֹב [יָשִׁ֣יב] הָ֭רַע לְשֹׁרְרָ֑י בַּ֝אֲמִתְּךָ֗ הַצְמִיתֵֽם׃

‎Psa. 54:8‏ בִּנְדָבָ֥ה אֶזְבְּחָה־לָּ֑ךְ א֤וֹדֶה שִּׁמְךָ֖ יְהוָ֣ה כִּי־טֽוֹב׃

‎Psa. 54:9‏ כִּ֣י מִכָּל־צָ֭רָה הִצִּילָ֑נִי וּ֝בְאֹיְבַ֗י רָאֲתָ֥ה עֵינִֽי׃

        

        Like Psalm 23, this psalm is short and very meaningful when we are faced with adversity. I believe the way this psalm was written is to help people to reflect over David's personal thoughts when he was betrayed by the Ziphites. In very much the same way, we see this in the lectio divina (Latin: divine reading of the Scriptures). An example is provided here. 

        It begins with the introduction, לַמְנַצֵּ֥חַ בִּנְגִינֹ֗ת , which tells us who the psalm is prepared for. It is for the 'chief musician' or some call it 'choir director' and it appears that he was in charge of the players of stringed instruments. 

        The word  מַשְׂכִּ֥יל  is not translated, but I believe this is something like a rendition or an attribute to David. The psalm is therefore an attribute to David (לְדָוִֽד). The context is also given so that people could understand the circumstances involved. 

        If this psalm is written by a third party, it is probably attributed to David. Perhaps, David had shared his own thoughts about that incident and the psalter helped to put it in words. Or, David could have also written it, but the story is based on the narrative we read in 1 Samuel 23 where the Ziphites (זִּיפִים) told King Saul that David (and his men) were hiding in their land. There was an agreement between King Saul and the Ziphites to spy on David's whereabouts, and all his hideouts so that King Saul could pursue him to the last hideout to finish him off. 

        If we understand how lectio divina is written, we will see how Psalm 54 was put together to enable us to experience a closer relationship with God by putting ourselves in David's shoes. Hence, the entire chapter gives us the first person perspective which is different from the third person narrative in 1 Samuel 23. 

        In verses 3 & 4, we see David turning to One and Only One who could save him. He is none other than God (אֱ֭לֹהִים) Himself. Who do we turn to when we are in distress? 

        Four verbs are used in these two verses, which the psalmist linked David and God, 

•         הוֹשִׁיעֵ֑נִי  which means 'save me.' This same root word  ישׁע is how we get two names, Joshua and Jesus. 
•        תְדִינֵֽנִי  means 'vindicate'. The Hebrew root word is דין which is translated as 'judge.' This tells us how David turned to God as the One who could see from Heaven and knew what was on the mind (motive) of Saul. God is the best judge, and David turns to Him for vindication. Bear in mind that the word we see in the word וּבִגְבוּרָתְךָ֥, the root word is גבר which means 'might', 'strength' or 'power.' Just as he did, David once again looked up to God as the One who has the power to save him from King Saul and his army. 
•  שְׁמַ֣ע Here is a word that we have come across time and again. "Hear , O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is one!" (see footnote 1) The word is in the Imperative, and this is like David demanding God to hear his cry.          

• הַ֝אֲזִ֗ינָה is a hifil imperative. The English translation 'Give ear' does not bring out the nuances that we see when we understand the Hebrew grammar. Hifil is a 'causative active' and 'imperative' means a strong urging from the person who speaks this word. It is like David telling God, "You have ears, O Lord. Cause Your ears to hear me!" This is a sound of desperation on the part of David.  How often do we call to God with such strong impulsion as David did! He did it to show God that he had no one else to turn to but God alone!

 I will leave the rest of the verses to another day. 

 FOOTNOTES:

1. Deut 6:4 is an imperative given to Israel to listen or hear this declaration that is God and He is only One God. 

”שְׁמַ֖ע יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל יְהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֵ֖ינוּ יְהוָ֥ה ׀ אֶחָֽד׃“

(Deuteronomy 6:4 HMT-W4) 

        

        

        

My Personal Encounter with Jesus in John 5:1-14

This is a Lectio Divina written by a fellow mature student from the seminary that I was in. This is his assignment as a partial fulfilment for a module on Spiritual Formation which he did. I have his permission to share his assignment, in view of my reading of Psalm 54 (see my blog post): 

My Personal Encounter with Jesus in John 5:1-14

By an Anonymous Author

        As usual, today I made my way to whatever available spot was left at the side of the pool of the Sheep Gate, where multitudes of invalids like the lame, blind or paralysed gathered around the pool side. I always seem to be one of the last ones to make it there, because I had met with an accident some 38 years ago, which left my feet mangled. I lost my ability to walk again. Each time, I have to drag myself on the ground just using my bare hands, all calloused and bruised from the much exerted effort to move, with my bed slung behind me. All of us invalids try to be the first to enter the pool when the waters are stirred, as we have seen for ourselves, that the first person who enters the pool is miraculously healed, for some reason or another. Today, it is exceptionally crowded, as there is a feast going on in Jerusalem. So it was very difficult for me to make my way through the crowd. Finally, I find a spot in a corner. I open up my bed to lay on it, facing the pool. It was extra difficult to see the pool water, with the walking crowd constantly blocking my view. The atmosphere was noisy, with shuffling feet, and people talking loudly, to be heard. While I kept intently looking at the pool, I was not hopeful today because of all the obstacles. I was extremely forlorn, dejected, thinking that coming here today was a waste of time.

        Suddenly, I heard a distinct voice, “Hello!” I took my focus from the pool and directed it at this man who was standing over me. He was looking directly at me. Undeniably, that voice and the eye contact stirred my spirit within me. I felt a warmth I had never felt for a long time. No one paid me any attention over the years. Before I could collect myself to respond to him, he shot me a rhetoric question, “Do you want to be healed?” I could have easily answered an emphatic “YES!” but instead I found myself unnecessarily explaining why I couldn’t make in the pool before anyone else. I would have continued, but he interjected with a ridiculous order, “Get up, take up your bed, and walk.” Immediately, I felt life in my feet and I straightened them, and, with amazement and exuberance, I shouted out, “My feet! My feet! I can feel them!” I could not do this for 38 long years. I stood up and took my ‘baby steps.’ I quickly grabbed my bed to rush home to tell my family, relatives and friends. I felt so tall. I could see far. I was making my way through the crowd with great excitement.

        “Today’s the Sabbath! How dare you carry your bed on the Sabbath!” rang aloud behind me. I turned to see an angry mob with daggered eyes eye-balling me. I panicked, realising they were the ‘holy joes.’ I explained that that man who healed me told me to do so. In all of my earlier excitement, I forgot about him, not realising he left me immediately after healing me. I really did not know who he was. All I could tell them was, “That Man told me to.” They let me go. On the way home, I thought I should go to the temple to show myself to the priest and perhaps, give thanks to God for healing me.