Exegeting the Messianic Psalms.

[John D. Brey]

I would think he would have more trouble with v7.

. . . Absolutely. Since it's clearly speaking of the same person. And verse 7 will be required to show fully why Rabbi Hirsch willfully, knowingly, interpolates against the spirit of the text of Psalm 2:6.

But first we need some background to what he's knowingly doing in verse 6.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

. . . Absolutely. Since it's clearly speaking of the same person. And verse 7 will be required to show fully why Rabbi Hirsch willfully, knowingly, interpolates against the spirit of the text of Psalm 2:6.

But first we need some background to what he's knowingly doing in verse 6.

. . . Because of the importance of the concept in the cross-hairs of this thread, I don't want to ramble on too long before cutting right to the chase, nevertheless, as usual, a little background is necessary. The Hebrew text of Psalms 2:6 is extremely cut and dry:

ואני נסכתי מלכי על ציון הר קדשי​

Translated without interpolation or interpretation the text reads simply:

And I have poured out my king upon my holy hill Zion.​

Nevertheless for some strange reason, Rabbi Hirsch, who would typically be the first to excoriate anyone mixing translation with interpolation and interpretation, finds himself victimized by his own need to read his tradition into this extremely important text. In his commentary, The Hirsch Tehillim, he presents the Hebrew text just as it exists above, which he spends half a page interpreting and commenting on (in the commentary section) and yet he feels the need, as isn't his style, to comment and interpolate right in the translation.

Set against the simple word-for-word translation above, we get this from Rabbi Hirsch, not in the commentary section mind you, but in the translation from the Hebrew. Using the Hebrew words/consonants above, Rabbi Hirsch "translates" (let me say that again "translates") the Hebrew text thus:

As for Me, I have long past anointed My King on Tziyon, the mountain of My Sanctuary!​

There's a fundamental difference between Rabbi Hirsch's "translation" of the Hebrew, versus the simple word-for-word translation. Listing them side-by-side reveals what Rabbi Hirsch is doing, what he's adding, interpolatively. ------After looking at the differences a careful exegesis can see the utter and necessary evil of what Rabbi Hirsch is doing and why he's doing it. Simply put, he's under extreme duress:

And I have poured out my king upon my holy hill Zion.

As for Me, I have long past anointed My King on Tziyon, the mountain of My Sanctuary!​

We can ignore "As for Me," as being close enough to the connective-vav "And."------Likewise, the rest of the translation is ok except that he interchanges "my holy hill," i.e., the plain Hebrew, for "the mountain of My Sanctuary." ------There's no "sanctuary" in the Hebrew text; just a "holy hill" הר קדשי. Rabbi Hirsch actually double up on the word ציון "zion" by translating it literally, and then interpolating it, against the Hebrew text, as "My Sanctuary." The latter isn't in the text. It's purely interpretive and interpolation adding to the text as though the translator can second as Author too.

The meat of this thread, the pearl of truly great value (begging mercy for the terrible mixed metaphor), revolves around Rabbi Hirsch's interpolation of the Hebrew words נסכתי מלכי " I poured out my king." Rabbi Hirsch translates נסך as "anointed" when not once in the Tanakh is that word used for "anointing." Furthermore, there's a perfectly good word that could have been used which is a root for the one that was used, a word which actually means "anointing" סוך.

The Hebrew word נסך means "pour[ed] out," and is used nearly exclusively for pouring out a drink offering, a sacrifice, which the Talmud (BT Zeb 44a) claims is preparatory for pouring out a blood sacrifice. Out of the two-dozen times נסך is used in the Tanakh, almost all of them speak of "pouring out" a "drink offering," and those that don't speak of the pouring out of molten metal to create an idol. Not once is the word used for pouring out the oil of anointing. Not once is it used to speak of anointing. And yet with zero scriptural support Rabbi Hirsch translates it here as "anointing" the King, rather than the King anointing the holy hill (as is the true and literal meaning of the Hebrew text).

Again, we will see precisely why Rabbi Hirsch felt the need to ignore scriptural precedent and force the word "pour out" to mean "anoint" when it simple doesn't, ever.

As a quick side-note, the word נסך has the suffix תי (first person singular) נסכ-תי making the correct translation "I poured out." There's only one other place in the Tanakh that the first person singular of נסך is used, Proverbs 8:23, and exegeting it is a thread in itself. But it speaks of being "poured out" from everlasting, from the beginning, before the earth was. Which is where Rabbi Hirsch gets the "long past" he places before "anointing" in his interpolation.

Not wanting to get distracted on Proverbs 8:23 (yet), we will see that it speaks of the same personage in Psalms 2:6, which is why consciously or not, Rabbi Hirsch references it to say that the King in Psalms 2:6 has been "long past anointed." Rabbi Hirsch knows that Proverbs 8:23 is the only place the word נסכתי is found throughout the scripture and thus knows it's referencing the same person and the same concept.

But it ain't "anointing." The word doesn't mean "anointing." Which segues into the most important exegetical nuance this here **** house exegete has ever uncovered in more than forty-years of painstakingly staking his claim to faith in the truth and power of the literal text of the holy scriptures. As will be seen, if this thread continues, all that work has paid off in being able to uncover the reason for one of Rabbi Hirsch's most desperate and violent attempts to save his beloved tradition from the naked consonants, the naked meaning, of God's naked presentation, of, get this, a naked Messiah.



John

 

[David T]

Lets see i loom

In another thread, i.e., while Exegeting the Messianic Psalms, I stumbled upon ground-zero concerning the Jewish/Christian debate on the identity of Messiah. In that other thread, I found myself blown away by how my beloved Jewish mentor, Rabbi Samson R. Hirsch, found it necessary to utterly distort Psalm 2:6 with a degree of sloppy and errant interpolation such as I've never seen in Rabbi Hirsch's otherwise able and careful exegetical hands (and I've read the lion's share of all Rabbi Hirsch's writings).

In subsequent study I've come to see precisely why Rabbi Hirsch consciously or otherwise found it necessary to completely distort the clear, plain, Hebrew text, of Psalms 2:6; for in that one verse lies the key to understanding the intense and contrary relationship between the Jewish concept of God's Messiah, versus the Christian concept of God's Messiah.




John

Is the text suppose to be a labryth of eternal bikering about nothing!?

I am not sure where i read THOU SHALT GET LOST IN THIS BOOK FOREVER AND BICKER OVER THAT THIS AND THE OTHER THING.
"so said the word of god. And it was the one commandment kept above all."

 

[Tumah]

Ok, I think this will be my last post in this thread, because I'm only one person and I an only take so much stupidity.

. . . I agree it's poetic language. So why change it? It says the King is being poured out. It might just be a poetic way to say he's being anointed but then it would seem to be a crime to erase the poetry and interpret it without the poetic language.

Just like the word for anointing isn't a passive verb, the verb for pouring isn't either. So using your argument, whenever anyone is anointed, it's actually their bodies that are being smeared on something. Normal people understand that when you speak of anointing a king, you're saying that the king was anointed with oil and not that the king himself was smeared on something. Normal people can also understand that when you speak of pouring the king, you mean pouring something on the king, and not pouring the king on something.

It's profane to present an interpretation that erases the intent of the author and present that "interpretation" as a mere translation of the actual text.

Yes, I agree, but here you are anyway.

The text poetically, or otherwise, says, the King is "poured out." That's what any translation should say.

Prove that the text doesn't say that the king was crowned.

Rabbi Hirsch can then use his commentary to point out that the literal meaning is merely poetic license for the King being anointed. . . But he doesn't do that. He presents his commentary as the literal translation of the actual Hebrew text. He insinuates that the actual Hebrew text should be interpreted to say something it doesn't say, even if he thinks it means it. . . Rabbi Hirsch seems to be confusing literal translation of the text with commentary. They're not interchangeable. Trying to place commentary into the actual, literal, text, is extremely problematic.

It is the literal translation, per the link I linked in a previous post.

. . . And yet the same poet, after beginning with "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Says . . . with that cry as intro . . . "I am poured out like water . . . my heart has turned to molten wax" (Psalms 22:14).

The word שפך is often used in metaphor. That is not the word here.

And in another messianic passage, par excellent, Isaiah 53, we read, " . . . the Lord makes his life a guilt offering . . . he poured out his life unto death."

These are all different words. I would have sworn that earlier you were asking where the specific word נסך is used for the meaning I described, but it seems, after I linked the dictionary, showing that it has the same meaning as סוך, you've backpedaled and now are willing to use any synonym as long as it supports your point.

So it looks like there's a precedent in the Tanakh for a person being poured out like liquid be it poetic or not. Why then would a serious exegete interpolate his own commentary on meaning over the literal interpretation of the Word of God?

Nope, no precedent. Just a translator taking poetic license.

Would it be such a stretch to connect Psalms 2:6 to Psalms 22:14, and Isaiah 53:10-12? Is Rabbi Hirsch frightened to have Psalm chapter 2 interpreted along with chapter 22, and Isaiah 53, as a messianic psalm?

Yes, it would be a stretch. Psalm 2 is referring to 2 Sam 5.
Psa. 22 is a general cry for help.
Isa. 53 is a prophecy about the Messianic Age.
There's no connection between them.

 

[Tumah]

You literally made another thread about the exact same topic.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

In what sense do you think the author used the word "poured"? Because I for one see "anointed" as being the proper usage

 

[Rival]

You literally made another thread about the exact same topic.

The threads have been merged now.

 

[John D. Brey]

Just like the word for anointing isn't a passive verb, the verb for pouring isn't either. So using your argument, whenever anyone is anointed, it's actually their bodies that are being smeared on something. Normal people understand that when you speak of anointing a king, you're saying that the king was anointed with oil and not that the king himself was smeared on something. Normal people can also understand that when you speak of pouring the king, you mean pouring something on the king, and not pouring the king on something.

. . . Unless the King is the נסך?

The Hebrew נסך unifies the "pouring" and what is "poured" meaning "poured thing." If you look at the first place the word is used in the scripture (Gen 35:14) you might note that the Hebrew text says "he poured" נסך the "drink offering" נסך. The same word is used for the "pouring" and the "drink offering." Same thing in Exodus 30:9: נסך is used twice; once for "pouring" and the second time for the thing poured. In fact, every time a "drink offering" נסך is "poured out" נסך the Hebrew text uses the same word for for the "pouring," and what is "poured."

Furthermore, in Genesis 35:14, the first place the word is used, we find that after the "drink offering" נסך is "poured out" נסך, he then "poured" יצק the oil to anoint the pillar. As is the case throughout the scripture, נסך is both the act of "pouring out" and the "thing" being poured out such that the word can never be used for pouring out the oil שמן of anointing since "anointing," "oil," and "pouring," always use different words for the three elements of the ritual.

Now as you correctly point out, normal people, and particularly normal Jews, aren't going to think for a moment that the King is being "poured out" as the "drink offering," even though the word always implies the direct link between the pouring and what is poured; normal Jews aren't likely to believe the King is going to be use to pour on the altar, to smear or mark (sanctify) the altar. And yet there were a bevy of first century Jews who not only thought like that, but who claimed King Messiah was indeed poured out as a drink offering on the altar where he was also sacrificed.

I respect that you don't give these Jews, or their Gentile followers credit for exegeting scripture correctly. And I know you're only one person, one Jew, and can only take so much stupidity before calling it quits. But if you will humor me for just a few more minutes I will share with you something that should change the way you interpret Psalm 2:6 forever; and perhaps even encourage you to look at some other verses with a beginner's eyes.

Not only does נסך always infer that what is being poured is נסך (such that it can't be שמן for anointing), but there's a much more important reason why this King, Messiah, isn't being anointed. He absolutely can't, and won't be, anointed, by Jewish law, since the only time a king is anointed (Mishneh Torah, Melachim 1:12) is when he doesn't inherit the throne from his father.

David is anointed because he's not the firstborn and doesn't (can't) inherit the throne from his father. But since David's greater son, King Messiah, is a בכור and a פטר רחם, it would be a desecration to anoint him since he inherits his throne from his father as a בכור פטר רחם.

For all these reason not only can the King in Psalms 2:6 not be "anointed" (the following verse -- verse 7 --- states that he's a firstborn בכור), but since we know the King in Psalm 2:6 is Messiah, and is נסך, "poured out" as the נסך "drink offering," we know not only that King Messiah can never be anointed (he inherits the throne) but we now know why a brilliant Jewish exegete like Rabbi Hirsch, following his predecessors, interpolates against the Hebrew text, נסך, and Hebrew law (a בכור isn't anointed King since he inherits the throne), in order to cover up possibly the greatest hidden secret you and I are are likely to share together in our natural lifetimes: Messiah משיח isn't the "anointed one," but the one who anoints: a King and a Priest.

Messiah is undeniably presented as a בכור (firstborn) and a womb-opener פטר רחם (a Jewish mother's firstborn). Messiah is undeniably a firstborn in the line of David such that he inherits the throne and will not be anointed King. And yet Messiah is called משיח, which is the Hebrew word for "anoint"? Messiah is the anointing Prince, the Prince who anoints, and not, ever, the one anointed. Messiah is a Prince-Priest. A King poured out נסך on the altar in order to anoint all of those who are part of his Kingdom: the Kingdom of this Prince-Priest, this King-Priest: משיח נסך Messiah the Anointing; he's the drink offering נסך poured out נסך in preparation (see Gen. 35:14) to anoint משחת the altar and those sprinkled נזה (Exodus 29:21; Isaiah 52:15) with the blood poured out on the altar.



John

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The King James Version is one of the worst translations in history. I wouldn't extra weight to "poured out" just because it is used by he KJV.

Who are the experts in Hebrew? The Jews. Read the Jewish translations. They will be the correct ones.

 

[dybmh]

@John D. Brey ,

Honestly, I think this an interesting theory, but it will only be convincing to other Christians. I don't see evidence that "Rabbi Hirsch willfully, knowingly, interpolates against the spirit of the text of Psalm 2:6" as stated in post #21.

The point I was making earlier about consulting other translations is that The Hirsch Tehillim was simply following the conventional understanding of the verse and the psalm. Following convention is not willfully, knowingly, interpolating against the spirit of the text. It's conventional, it's not a cover-up.

 

[John D. Brey]

@John D. Brey ,

Honestly, I think this an interesting theory, but it will only be convincing to other Christians. I don't see evidence that "Rabbi Hirsch willfully, knowingly, interpolates against the spirit of the text of Psalm 2:6" as stated in post #21.

The point I was making earlier about consulting other translations is that The Hirsch Tehillim was simply following the conventional understanding of the verse and the psalm. Following convention is not willfully, knowingly, interpolating against the spirit of the text. It's conventional, it's not a cover-up.

As anyone familiar with Rabbi Hirsch will know, and can attest, he's nobody's fool. He breaks with tradition if he thinks it's in error.

You're right that the reading I'm contending with is traditional, conventional, and ancient. Nevertheless, the Hebrew words speak for themselves to a degree. All interpretation and translation stands against the actual Hebrew text. And the actual Hebrew text say that God "poured out" his king on the holy mountain. The Hebrew word נסךתי doesn't, ever, mean "anoint" or "appoint." It means "pour out" and in 90% of the cases in the Tanakh it means to "pour out" a "drink offering."

In fact, a careful search shows that the very word נסך is itself used many times not just for "pouring out" the "drink offering," but for the "drink offering" itself. The "drink offering" is more accurately termed the "poured out" offering; the נסך.

When you say these arguments will only be convincing to Christians you seem to be implying that if Christians teach that the Son of God (Psalms 2:7) is "poured out" like an offering on the altar (Psalms 2:6) that somehow the Hebrew text which literally says God's Son is "poured out" on the altar should be altered to be fair to a Jewish tradition that rejects the later whether it's the literal and true Hebrew statement of Psalms 2:6 or not?

If the literal, correct, translation, of the actual Hebrew text, supports a Christian position utterly rejected by Jews should that somehow affect the way the Hebrew is interpreted and translated?



John

 

[John D. Brey]

In what sense do you think the author used the word "poured"? Because I for one see "anointed" as being the proper usage

. . . What are you basing your opinion on? The Hebrew word translated "anoint" never means "anoint" in any other place. Words can have subtle nuances and can be subject to various meanings and interpretations; but only to a degree.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

The point I was making earlier about consulting other translations is that The Hirsch Tehillim was simply following the conventional understanding of the verse and the psalm. Following convention is not willfully, knowingly, interpolating against the spirit of the text. It's conventional, it's not a cover-up.

Why have the nations gathered----Our Sages (Ber. 7b) expounded the passage as referring to the King Messiah, but according to its apparent meaning, [and, in order to reply to the sectarians, --- Parshandatha] it is proper to interpret it as referring to David himself . . . [Rashi].

Judaica Books of the Holy Writings, Psalms, vol. 1, p. 5.​

Judaica Books inserts the bracketed comment pointing out that Rashi claims it's proper to interpret the verses as referring to David rather than Messiah his greater Son so that the "sectarians" (which is a code word for Christians) don't have a leg to stand on.

It has been shown by Bottcher, that we must not translate "I have anointed" (Targ., Symm.). נָסַךְ, نسك, certainly means to pour out . . . [but] the place of the anointing is not על–ציון [upon Zion]. History makes no mention of a king of Israel being anointed on Zion. Zion is mentioned as the royal seat of the Anointed One; there He is installed, that He may reign there, and rule from thence cx. 2.

Keil-Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, Psalms 2:6.​

John

 

[dybmh]

Why have the nations gathered----Our Sages (Ber. 7b) expounded the passage as referring to the King Messiah, but according to its apparent meaning, [and, in order to reply to the sectarians, --- Parshandatha] it is proper to interpret it as referring to David himself . . . [Rashi].

Judaica Books of the Holy Writings, Psalms, vol. 1, p. 5.​

Judaica Books inserts the bracketed comment pointing out that Rashi claims it's proper to interpret the verses as referring to David rather than Messiah his greater Son so that the "sectarians" (which is a code word for Christians) don't have a leg to stand on.

It has been shown by Bottcher, that we must not translate "I have anointed" (Targ., Symm.). נָסַךְ, نسك, certainly means to pour out . . . [but] the place of the anointing is not על–ציון [upon Zion]. History makes no mention of a king of Israel being anointed on Zion. Zion is mentioned as the royal seat of the Anointed One; there He is installed, that He may reign there, and rule from thence cx. 2.

Keil-Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, Psalms 2:6.​

John

Here is the complete Rashi on verse 1: (source)

Why have nations gathered: Our Sages (Ber. 7b) expounded the passage as referring to the King Messiah, but according to its apparent meaning, it is proper to interpret it as referring to David himself, as the matter is stated (II Sam. 5:17): “And the Philistines heard that they had anointed David as king over Israel, and all the Philistines went up to seek, etc.,” and they fell into his hands. Concerning them, he says, “Why have nations gathered,” and they all gathered.

and kingdoms think: vain things in their heart.

and kingdoms: Heb. ולאמים. Menachem interprets לאמים, אמות, and גוים as all closely related.

This is what I am seeing in Berachot 7B. This is from the Koren Steinsaltz Talmud Bavli Page 44 ( Perek 1 7B ):

It is written: "Why do the peoples speak for naught?" "how numerous are my enemies" is not written. "A Psalm of David when fleeing his son, Absalom." A Psalm of David? It should have [said]: A lament of David.

That's all I saw that Berachot 7B says about this Psalm.

....

Rashi represents the conventional P'shat ( the simple meaning ). Which is: the "anointed" is King David per 2 Sam 5:17.

Sidebar: Isn't this what Tumah said from the beginning?

So, I don't know what to tell you. The comment about Parshandatha ( Haman's son ) seems a little weird to me. Rashi doesn't include it. I don't know where your source got that part from.

Here's the hebrew of the Rashi, you can check for yourself. The word "Parshandatha" is not there. (source)

למה רגשו גוים. רבותינו דרשו את הענין על מלך המשיח ולפי משמעו יהיה נכון לפותרו על דוד עצמו כעין שנאמר (ש"ב ה יז) וישמעו פלשתים כי משחו ישראל את דוד למלך עליהם ויקבצו פלשתים את מחניהם ונפלו בידו ועליהם אמר למה רגשו גוים ונתקבצו כולם

The point is: Rashi's approach is conventional. The translation to "anointed" in verse 2:6 is a "throw-back" to 2 sam 5:17. The idea that the verse is speaking about "melech ha-Mashiach" is not conventional. So again... no cover-up. Rabbi Hirsch was not under duress by following the Rashi.

 

[John D. Brey]

Rashi represents the conventional P'shat ( the simple meaning ). Which is: the "anointed" is King David per 2 Sam 5:17. . . Isn't this what Tumah said from the beginning?

A king is never anointed unless he doesn't inherit the throne from his father. David is anointed because he's not the firstborn and doesn't inherit the throne. Messiah is the firstborn and does inherit the throne so that he can't be anointed King. Secondly, in 2 Samuel 7:14, God says to David that he will be Father to David's messianic son, and that David's messianic son will become God's Son. Psalm 2:7 says that on the day the King is "poured out" נסך on Zion's mountain to anoint that mountain of Zion making it "holy" (2:6) that very day the King becomes God's Son.

Rashi knows that Psalms 2:7 represents the same "begetting" as Son that's decreed in 2 Samuel 7:14. And it doesn't take a Rashi to know that.

In the Gospels, playing partly on the relationship between 2 Samuel 7:14 and Psalms 2:6-7, as well as the relationship between 1 Chronicles 28:2 and Psalms 110:1, Jesus corners his Pharisaical adversaries when he asks them about Psalms 110:1, "The Lord said to my Lord sit at my right hand till I make your enemies the footstool for you feet." Psalms 110 speaks of Messiah's reign, and yet God says to David that he will make Messiah's enemies the "footstool" for his feet. Well in 1 Chronicles 28:2, David points out that the "footstool" is at God's own feet such that Jesus plays on the fact that Messiah is called David's Lord in verse one, and is promised that his enemies will be the "footstool" for his feet. Later in the Psalm 110, the Lordship over the nations is mentions precisely as it is in Psalms 2:8. The verses all segue perfectly.

Btw, "Parshandatha" is a term used to refer to Rashi. In the Judaica Books commentary on the Psalms the commentator (vol. 1, p. 4) says that that Rashi is aware that the text is speaking of Messiah (how could he not be) but says that for the sake of not arming the sectarians, the Christians, with amo for their interpretations, it's acceptable to translated it as speaking of David himself.

המחלקת לפיכך משחו שלמה מפני אלניה ויאש מפני עתליה ומשחו יהואחז מפני יהיקים אחיו

The son of a king is not anointed unless this is necessary to resolve a dispute (of succession) or a war. Thus, Solomon was anointed because of Adoniyoh, Yoash because of Asalioh, and Yehoachoz because of Yehoyokim his brother.

Mishneh Torah, Melachim 1:12.​

John

 

[Muffled]

. . . Because of the importance of the concept in the cross-hairs of this thread, I don't want to ramble on too long before cutting right to the chase, nevertheless, as usual, a little background is necessary. The Hebrew text of Psalms 2:6 is extremely cut and dry:

ואני נסכתי מלכי על ציון הר קדשי​

Translated without interpolation or interpretation the text reads simply:

And I have poured out my king upon my holy hill Zion.​

Nevertheless for some strange reason, Rabbi Hirsch, who would typically be the first to excoriate anyone mixing translation with interpolation and interpretation, finds himself victimized by his own need to read his tradition into this extremely important text. In his commentary, The Hirsch Tehillim, he presents the Hebrew text just as it exists above, which he spends half a page interpreting and commenting on (in the commentary section) and yet he feels the need, as isn't his style, to comment and interpolate right in the translation.

Set against the simple word-for-word translation above, we get this from Rabbi Hirsch, not in the commentary section mind you, but in the translation from the Hebrew. Using the Hebrew words/consonants above, Rabbi Hirsch "translates" (let me say that again "translates") the Hebrew text thus:

As for Me, I have long past anointed My King on Tziyon, the mountain of My Sanctuary!​

There's a fundamental difference between Rabbi Hirsch's "translation" of the Hebrew, versus the simple word-for-word translation. Listing them side-by-side reveals what Rabbi Hirsch is doing, what he's adding, interpolatively. ------After looking at the differences a careful exegesis can see the utter and necessary evil of what Rabbi Hirsch is doing and why he's doing it. Simply put, he's under extreme duress:

And I have poured out my king upon my holy hill Zion.

As for Me, I have long past anointed My King on Tziyon, the mountain of My Sanctuary!​

We can ignore "As for Me," as being close enough to the connective-vav "And."------Likewise, the rest of the translation is ok except that he interchanges "my holy hill," i.e., the plain Hebrew, for "the mountain of My Sanctuary." ------There's no "sanctuary" in the Hebrew text; just a "holy hill" הר קדשי. Rabbi Hirsch actually double up on the word ציון "zion" by translating it literally, and then interpolating it, against the Hebrew text, as "My Sanctuary." The latter isn't in the text. It's purely interpretive and interpolation adding to the text as though the translator can second as Author too.

The meat of this thread, the pearl of truly great value (begging mercy for the terrible mixed metaphor), revolves around Rabbi Hirsch's interpolation of the Hebrew words נסכתי מלכי " I poured out my king." Rabbi Hirsch translates נסך as "anointed" when not once in the Tanakh is that word used for "anointing." Furthermore, there's a perfectly good word that could have been used which is a root for the one that was used, a word which actually means "anointing" סוך.

The Hebrew word נסך means "pour[ed] out," and is used nearly exclusively for pouring out a drink offering, a sacrifice, which the Talmud (BT Zeb 44a) claims is preparatory for pouring out a blood sacrifice. Out of the two-dozen times נסך is used in the Tanakh, almost all of them speak of "pouring out" a "drink offering," and those that don't speak of the pouring out of molten metal to create an idol. Not once is the word used for pouring out the oil of anointing. Not once is it used to speak of anointing. And yet with zero scriptural support Rabbi Hirsch translates it here as "anointing" the King, rather than the King anointing the holy hill (as is the true and literal meaning of the Hebrew text).

Again, we will see precisely why Rabbi Hirsch felt the need to ignore scriptural precedent and force the word "pour out" to mean "anoint" when it simple doesn't, ever.

As a quick side-note, the word נסך has the suffix תי (first person singular) נסכ-תי making the correct translation "I poured out." There's only one other place in the Tanakh that the first person singular of נסך is used, Proverbs 8:23, and exegeting it is a thread in itself. But it speaks of being "poured out" from everlasting, from the beginning, before the earth was. Which is where Rabbi Hirsch gets the "long past" he places before "anointing" in his interpolation.

Not wanting to get distracted on Proverbs 8:23 (yet), we will see that it speaks of the same personage in Psalms 2:6, which is why consciously or not, Rabbi Hirsch references it to say that the King in Psalms 2:6 has been "long past anointed." Rabbi Hirsch knows that Proverbs 8:23 is the only place the word נסכתי is found throughout the scripture and thus knows it's referencing the same person and the same concept.

But it ain't "anointing." The word doesn't mean "anointing." Which segues into the most important exegetical nuance this here **** house exegete has ever uncovered in more than forty-years of painstakingly staking his claim to faith in the truth and power of the literal text of the holy scriptures. As will be seen, if this thread continues, all that work has paid off in being able to uncover the reason for one of Rabbi Hirsch's most desperate and violent attempts to save his beloved tradition from the naked consonants, the naked meaning, of God's naked presentation, of, get this, a naked Messiah.



John

Is it ever used as the pouring out of blood of an animal sacrifice? I know Jesus promises us living water but a drink offering doesn't seem to fit.

 

[Muffled]

Lets see i loom

Is the text suppose to be a labryth of eternal bikering about nothing!?

I am not sure where i read THOU SHALT GET LOST IN THIS BOOK FOREVER AND BICKER OVER THAT THIS AND THE OTHER THING.
"so said the word of god. And it was the one commandment kept above all."

I believe Jews bend over backwards to do everything in their power to get rid of a Messiah they do not wish to acknowledge.

 

[Muffled]

The King James Version is one of the worst translations in history. I wouldn't extra weight to "poured out" just because it is used by he KJV.

Who are the experts in Hebrew? The Jews. Read the Jewish translations. They will be the correct ones.

I believe that is not the case. From what I have seen Jews translate in a way to fit their own current false beliefs just as the JW's eliminate the divinity of Jesus from their translation because they don't believe in it.

 

[John D. Brey]

Is it ever used as the pouring out of blood of an animal sacrifice? I know Jesus promises us living water but a drink offering doesn't seem to fit.

. . . That's a great question in this context. My answer would be that the drink offering is directly associated with the blood-sacrifice such that it represents a distinct aspect of the overall offering that's being both hidden (from those not allowed to drink the blood of the sacrifice, see thread on The Baffling Bloody Ban) and yet revealed to those who can drink blood (John 6:53).

Second, it should be noted that, even when the people of Israel entered into and conquered the land, it was only God who was given the wine of the drink offering. True, the people were permitted to drink wine and strong drink at the sanctuary. But, unlike most of the animal and grain offerings — a portion of which were retained for the priests or the worshiper — the entire drink offering was poured out upon the altar of burnt offering. (Kurtz, convincingly, infers this from two facts: first, the priests were forbidden to drink wine in the tabernacle [Lev. 10:9], and, second, the requirement that all sacrificial food be eaten in the tabernacle precincts [Lev. 6:16]). Thus, the drink offering was a sign not only of God’s victory and His entering into sabbath rest, but a sign of Israel’s exclusion from full participation in that victory and rest. In the New Covenant, Christ, the God-man, has entered into Sabbath rest, and we with Him. Therefore, we are given not only to eat of the flesh of our peace offering, but also to drink of the wine of the libation.

BIBLICAL Horizons, No. 25, May, 1991.
​

John

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I believe that is not the case. From what I have seen Jews translate in a way to fit their own current false beliefs just as the JW's eliminate the divinity of Jesus from their translation because they don't believe in it.

I beg your pardon. It's our sacred texts. It was written by us, about us, for us. We are the ones who have preserved the proper understanding of these texts for thousands of years. If Christians say we twist the understanding to support our "false beliefs," well that's just what you can expect a Christian to say, now, isn't it. It's to a Christian's advantage to push that line.

JW's btw, mistranslate. Nothing we Jews do is anything like that. We don't translate at all. We use the original Hebrew. We teach our children Hebrew so that they can read the texts in the native language and not have to rely on translations. Chrisitans should take note of that.