Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Polycarp66 AT aol.com]

In a message dated 2/14/2003 11:10:53 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
markeddy AT adams.net writes:

> Why assume that the compiler(s) of the 5 books of Psalms did NOT know who 
> wrote the Psalms? Why assume
> that we today know more than they did? Isn't it best to place more weight 
> on primary documents rather than
> on the doubts of people who lived over 2000 years later? There is 
> absolutely no ancient evidence to
> contradict the Davidic authoriship of this Psalm. If we don't know who 
> wrote this Psalm, we don't know who
> wrote Plato's writings, or Josephus's works. It seems best to accept the 
> testimony of the compilers of the
> Psalms. If they didn't know who wrote a Psalm, they left it without title. 
> They knew that David wrote Ps.
> 110. We need really good reasons to assume that they didn't know this.
> 
There is a very good reason to suppose "that the compiler(s) of the 5 books 
of Psalms did NOT know who wrote the Psalms".  This is contained within this 
psalm itself.  Who is reference by  La)DoNiY "to my lord"?  Surely, upon the 
supposition that the superscription intends to state that David wrote it, you 
don't intend to state that David is referring to himself as "my lord"?

gfsomsel
>From lizfried AT umich.edu  Fri Feb 14 11:26:53 2003
Return-Path: <lizfried AT umich.edu>
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from harumscarum.mr.itd.umich.edu (harumscarum.mr.itd.umich.edu
        [141.211.125.17])
        by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DBF120011
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>;
        Fri, 14 Feb 2003 11:26:53 -0500 (EST)
Received: from lizfried (pcp02370745pcs.sanarb01.mi.comcast.net
        [68.43.236.53])
        by harumscarum.mr.itd.umich.edu (8.9.3/3.3s) with SMTP id LAA17025
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>;
        Fri, 14 Feb 2003 11:28:02 -0500 (EST)
From: "Lisbeth S. Fried" <lizfried AT umich.edu>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Subject: RE: Fw: [b-hebrew] le DWD
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 11:32:33 -0500
Message-ID: <NFBBKDEKJBKDMCGCFJNKMEDIEMAA.lizfried AT umich.edu>
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
In-Reply-To: <112.1ec97694.2b7e7076 AT aol.com>
Importance: Normal
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
Reply-To: lizfried AT umich.edu
List-Id: A forum on the Hebrew Bible, its language and interpretation
        <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 16:26:54 -0000


Dear Listers,
Bringing this back to B-Hebrew, what is the meaning of the prescript le?
I know that in the pre-exilic period, l'PN meant "belonging to."
In the Aramaic letters of Ezra, le is used as a prescript meaning "to
PN."
This use has been considered to be Hellenistic and Roman, not Persian.
In the Persian period the convention is 'el or 'al.
Does anyone know of an earlier use than the Hellenistic period in which
le could mean "addressed to" rather than "belonging to"?
As regards the psalms, I would imagine that the postscripts were
added in the Roman period, since if I recall correctly, they do not
exist at Qumran.
If so, then it would mean "dedicated to" not "belonging to."
Even if it does mean "belonging to," I would not interpret it to mean
"written by." It would still mean "belonging to" in the sense of
"dedicated to."
Liz Fried


> -----Original Message-----
> From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org
> [mailto:b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org]On Behalf Of
> Polycarp66 AT aol.com
> Sent: Fri, February 14, 2003 11:17 AM
> To: markeddy AT adams.net; b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Subject: Re: Fw: [b-hebrew] LORD
>
>
> In a message dated 2/14/2003 11:10:53 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> markeddy AT adams.net writes:
>
> > Why assume that the compiler(s) of the 5 books of Psalms
> did NOT know who
> > wrote the Psalms? Why assume
> > that we today know more than they did? Isn't it best to
> place more weight
> > on primary documents rather than
> > on the doubts of people who lived over 2000 years later? There is
> > absolutely no ancient evidence to
> > contradict the Davidic authoriship of this Psalm. If we
> don't know who
> > wrote this Psalm, we don't know who
> > wrote Plato's writings, or Josephus's works. It seems best
> to accept the
> > testimony of the compilers of the
> > Psalms. If they didn't know who wrote a Psalm, they left it
> without title.
> > They knew that David wrote Ps.
> > 110. We need really good reasons to assume that they didn't
> know this.
> >
> There is a very good reason to suppose "that the compiler(s)
> of the 5 books
> of Psalms did NOT know who wrote the Psalms".  This is
> contained within this
> psalm itself.  Who is reference by  La)DoNiY "to my lord"?
> Surely, upon the
> supposition that the superscription intends to state that
> David wrote it, you
> don't intend to state that David is referring to himself as "my lord"?
>
> gfsomsel
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew