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'.
“Sit at My right hand
Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.” (Psalm 110:1)
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.
(1) Alter, Robert. The Hebrew Bible (Vol 3) The Writings. First. Vol. 3. 3 vols. NY: W.W. Norton & Company, 2019.
No comments:
Post a Comment