Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Yigal Levin <Yigal-Levin AT utc.edu>]

Dear Pastor Mark,

Even if you do not accept them, I'm sure that you are aware of the
conclusions of critical biblical studies of the past century or so. But
even if David DID write Ps. 110, since the whole psalm is in the third
person, there is no reason to assume that he's speaking from his own
experience. The psalm is a poem describing a conversation between YHWH and
someone - that someone NOT being the writer. So, in this case, whether or
not we accept that the writer's name was David and that that David was the
King is irrelevant.

As far as Melchizedek, you are right that, according to Gen. 14, he was a
priest-king, a gentile and certainly not descended from Aaron. SO - what
DOES the psalmist mean? Let's theorize a little:
1. He (David?) didn't know the "J" story in Gen. 14, which was written later?
2. He (David?) didn't know that according to "P", only Aaronides were
supposed to be priests? Was Zadok an Aaronide?
3. The similarity to Melchizedek that he was looking for WAS, in fact, that
of king-priest. Does that make Ps. 110 Hasmonean? 
4. ALL of the above?

I don't know, and I admit that I don't know. You don't know either, but you
believe, which is your right. But that doesn't make for sound academic
investigation.

As far as Mark (the evangelist), once again, I would not presume to try to
convince you of what NT scholars have come up with over the past century.
Whoever "Mark" was, nowhere in his Gospel does he claim to have been an
eyewitness to the events. The same is true for the others. Even if "Mathew"
WAS the tax-collector turned Apostle, HOW would he know of the events of,
say, the nativity? If your answer is "the Holy Spirit guided his quill"
that's fine, but I can't use that in academic discourse. And the gospels
are obviously NOT in chronological order, for if so, John (son of Zebedee,
the Apostle) would be second, before Mark companion of Peter of Dr. Luke
friend of Paul.

Please do not take any of this as either a personal attack or as an attack
on your faith. It is all a part of the open, and hopefully mutually
instructive discourse that we have come to expect on this list.

Yigal




At 09:27 AM 2/14/2003 -0600, Pastor Mark Eddy wrote:
>Thanks for responding. Comments below.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Yigal Levin"
>> Dear Pastor Mark,
>>
>> Despite my Jewish reading, I am capable of assuming, as do many critical
>> scholars, that the superscription "A psalm of David" may NOT be part of the
>> original text of Ps. 110. I don't KONW who the original author is -
>
>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.
>
>> and I only said that I assumed that "my lord: was a priest because of the
>> refference to "a priest after the order of Melchizedek".
>
>Melchizedek's priesthood had no conncection with the priesthood of Israel.
It was not based from Aaron's
>priesthood. There is no evidence that any individual ever served in a
priesthood "after the order of
>Melchizedek" during the time covered in the Hebrew Bible. Melchizedek was
both kind and priest at the same
>time (Gen. 14:19). The Messiah was expected to be this sort of
king-priest. Based on any textual evidence,
>there is no reason to rule the Messiah out as the referrent of the
Adon(a)i of Psalm 110. In fact, this
>seems to be the only possible referrent, based on biblical evidence alone.
There is no evidence that David
>(or whoever you believe the psalmist is) knew any person in his day who
acted in such a priesthood.
>However, there is evidence that the post-exilic prophets of Judah
envisioned a Messiah whose priesthood
>was higher than that of Israel's levitical priesthood. The "mesenger of
the covenant" of "the Lord [Adon]
>whom you seek" of Malachi 3:1 was going to come and purify the sons of
Levi (Mal. 3:3) in an event very
>similar to the Day of the Lord of the pre-exilic prophets (and of Mal.
3:23). This "Lord" would be like
>Moses, who first purified Aaron and his sons before they could become
Israel's first priesthood. See Deut.
>18:15ff and Deut. 34:10-12. This lead/king/priest was someone who would
come after the Hebrew Bible was
>complete, before the Day of YHWH. Who else could fill this but the Messiah?
>
>> But even if it was David, his calling a priest "my lord" would not
bother me.
>
>But such usage of the term "my lord" was totally unprecedented. Priests
called kings "my lord." Not the
>other way around. But if the "priest after the order of Melchizedek" was
also a king, then Psalm 110 makes
>sense. Remember that Samuel didn't want Israel to choose a human king,
because YHWH was their King (see 1
>Sam. 8, especially verse 7). Even after the Davidic kingdom was
established, believing Israel still
>confessed that YHWH was King (see e.g. Psalm 24). Isn't it much more
likely that David would call the
>future, divine, messianic King his "Lord" than that he would call a
contemporary, human priest "my lord"?
>
>> However, presuming to read a trinitarian godhead into this context does.
>
>I am sorry if what I did bothers anyone. I do not "presume" a trinitarian
godhead. I find Him revealing
>Himself in the Hebrew Bible in many places. We can forget about the
post-biblical Christian terminology
>about "Trinity" for this discussion. That term was just a label used to
discribe the biblical evidence of
>both the Hebrew Bible and Greek Bible. One of my Old Testamet exegetical
profs used the term "polynity" to
>describe what we see in the Hebrew Bible. Nobody on this list needs the
evidence that the Hebrew Bible
>taught that YHWH was "one" and that He is the only God who lives and
exists. But this one God speaks of
>Himself in the plural in many places (e.g. Gen. 1:26, which I mentioned
yesterday). And this one God could
>send a Messenger/Angel who is also called YHWH (e.g. in Ex. 3, which I
mentioned yesterday).
>
>> The use of this verse in Jesus' polemic with the Pharisees in Matt.
>> 22:42-45/Mark 12:35-37/Luke 20:41-44 means nothing other than that "Mark"
>> (or his source), writing the story some decades after Jesus, already
>> assumed that Jesus was both "Lord" and "Son of David/Messiah/Christ".
>
>Why do you assume that what they wrote was an "assumption"? Why do you
assume that "Mark" was the first
>Gospel. The early Christian fathers thought that Matthew was first. And he
was a disciple who accompanied
>Jesus for years and saw Him alive after His crucifixion and resurrection.
>
>> You will notice that the NT (I assume following the LXX) uses "Lord"
>> (KURIOS) for both the "YHWH" and "Adoni" of the Hebrew. Assuming that
>> "Mark" the Greek-speaking Gentile had no knowledge of the Hebrew, this
>> could even make sense.
>
>But Matthew knew Hebrew. He often translated direct from the Hebrew Bible,
instead of just quoting the LXX
>(see e.g. Matt. 2:15). Why would Matthew not mind using KURIOS for both
YHWH and ADON? Because by the time
>Jesus rose from the dead he had been convinced, as was the skeptical
disciple Thomas, that Jesus was both
>"My Lord and my God" (John 20:28, to which Liz referred last week. And,
no, he wasn't taking God's name in
>vain. He was confessing his faith that Jesus actually was his Lord and his
God.) The Jewish writers were
>of what we call "the Gospels" were convinced by the historical fact that
Jesus had been killed by
>crucifixion, but now He was living again, as He had predicted. Jesus was
properly charged with blasephemy
>by the priests of His day, because Jesus was making claims to be the
divine Messiah. If His claims were
>false, they rightly condemned Him to death. But since He was able to rise
from the dead, it appears that
>His claims were not false. So He really was the Messiah of the Hebrew
Bible. That statement is not an
>assumption. It is a deduction from the textual and historical facts.
>
>And, by the way, why do you assume that Mark was a Greek speaking Gentile?
Obviously he spoke Greek. He
>wrote in Greek. But what evidence is there that he did not know Hebrew or
Aramaic? Mark was living in
>Jerusalem around the time of Jesus' crucifixion. His mother Mary's house
was the gathering place for the
>Christians in Jerusalem early on (Acts 12:12), before Gentiles were fully
accepted in the Jerusalem
>church. Mark himself was a companion of Jesus' disciples in Jerusalem
(Acts 12:25). There is
>circumstancial evidence that Mark himself was the young man who followed
Jesus and His disciples to the
>Garden of Gethsemane on the night Jesus was arrested (This is recorded
only in Mark 14:51f). So it is an
>unproven assumption that Mark didn't know Hebrew. The early Christian
church did claim that Mark wrote for
>a Gentile audience, since he later served with Paul/Saul of Tarsus and
Peter (both of whom were Jews,
>acquainted with Hebrew) when they were in Europe. The evidence shows that
the Greek Bible writers could
>use the word "Lord" (KURIOS) about Jesus, because in any sense in which
the word was used among the Jewish
>Christians, that word applied to Jesus.
>
>> But WE are trying to understand the Hebrew - let's
>> do it without preconceptions.
>
>Is it possible to do anything without "preconceptions"? We always come to
a text with our previous
>knowledge in mind. You have your preconceptions. I have mine. The question
is, "do our preconceptions
>stand up to the facts of history and the evidence that was left behind by
those events?" If our goal is to
>understand the Hebrew Bible, and since I know that evidence from other ANE
cultures is fair, why not
>evidence from later history that backs up what the Hebrew Bible claimed
would happen in the future? Let
>all our preconceptions be changed or confirmed by actual evidence. I'll
gladly leave out the opinions of
>modern scholars who didn't live back then. But I can't leave out
historical and textual evidence from my
>"preconceptions."
>
>In search of the truth,
>Mark Eddy
>
>_______________________________________________
>b-hebrew mailing list
>b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
Dr. Yigal Levin
Dept. of Philosophy and Religion
University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
615 McCallie Avenue
Chattanooga TN 37403-2598
U.S.A.
>From markeddy AT adams.net  Fri Feb 14 15:46:43 2003
Return-Path: <markeddy AT adams.net>
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from adams.net (mail-fe1.adams.net [216.138.0.19])
        by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with SMTP id 81D342002B
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>;
        Fri, 14 Feb 2003 15:46:43 -0500 (EST)
Received: (qmail 11902 invoked by uid 0); 14 Feb 2003 20:47:47 -0000
Received: from gas53b-91.adams.net (HELO default) (216.138.36.91)
  by adams.net with SMTP; 14 Feb 2003 20:47:45 -0000
Message-ID: <00b901c2d462$bd299e20$d1248ad8@default>
From: "Pastor Mark Eddy" <markeddy AT adams.net>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
References: <1e2.20ac70f.2b7e8640 AT aol.com>
Subject: Re: Psalm 110 was Re: [b-hebrew] LORD
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 13:03:20 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
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 20:46:43 -0000


----- Original Message -----
From: Polycarp66 AT aol.com

gfsomsel asked:
Mark,

To whom then was David speaking?

My answer:
I'm not sure that I understand the question. David seems to have written his 
psalms to be used also by
others in their worship. In that sense, David was speaking to whomever would 
use this Psalm in the future.
Not all Psalms are prayers addressed to God. Some, like this one, are 
didactic. Psalm 110 begins: NeAuM
YHWH. This is a standard beginning for a prophetic utterance of God to His 
people. This phrase first first
occurs (in cannonical order) in Gen. 22:16. It also occurs in 1 Sam. 2:30 and 
extensively in the latter
prophets (e.g. Is. 14:22f etc., Jer. 1:8 etc., Ezek 13:6f etc., Hos 2:14 
etc., Amos 2:11 etc. etc.) This
is the only use of NeAuM YHWH in the Psalms. That gives us a clue that this 
Psalm has a special,
revelatory character. David writes that God Himself revealed this decree to 
David. David wrote it down, so
that all his people might know about this decree of YHWH.

If you mean, who is the "you" of verse 2ff? It is David's "Lord" to whom YHWH 
addressed the words of verse
1. Verse 4 again has YHWH address David's "Lord" with the words, "You are a 
priest forever..." I think
everyone agrees that those words are not spoken to David. Verse 6 is where 
the address switches from
second to third person. It seems best to apply them also to David's "Lord" 
rather than to YHWH.

I hope this answers your question.
Mark Eddy