1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Psalms 9:1.

Discussion in 'Scriptural Debates' started by John D. Brey, Jul 21, 2019.

  1. John D. Brey

    John D. Brey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Messages:
    1,166
    Ratings:
    +76
    In Psalms 4, 5, 6 and 8, the word למנצח is connected with he ensuing words by the cantillation mark. Thus, in Psalm 8 the subject of the contents is not על הגתית, but the גתית which can be overcome by Divine inspiration. In Psalm 9 however, the word למנצח is definitely separated from על by means of the טפחא cantillation mark, and [thus] על–מות לבן designates the content of the Psalm.

    The Hirsch Tehillim, 9:1.​

    Rabbi Hirsch explains some exegetical nuances whereby Psalm 8, the introduction to the Psalm, means the content is not "upon" על the "winepress" גתית, but that the "winepress" גתית, or the pressure associated with a winepress, is the content of Psalm 8. He goes on to point out that something thought to be merely the introduction to Psalm 9 is actually part of the first verse of the Psalm such that most version of the Psalm don't have what The Hirsch Tehillim treats as the first verse of chapter 9.

    Before pointing out the almost unbelievable translation of Psalm 9:1 that Rabbi Hirsch gives us, it's important to link his comments on Psalm 8 to the thread on Psalm 2:6, where the word נסך is erroneously translated "anoint" rather than to "pour out" a drink offering as preliminary to, or part and parcel of, the actual anointing. In Psalm 2:6 the King isn't being anointed so much as he's being "poured out" נסך as preparation for the altar being anointed. For obvious reasons, Rabbi Hirsch finds it nearly impossible to allow the text to speak of God pouring out his King (Messiah), his firstborn Son (2:7), as a drink offering נסך, which is a sacrificial offering, requiring death, since no sacrifice in the Jewish system skirts death, as will be important in showing Rabbi Hirsch's desperation to save his tradition from what the literal text appears to be saying in 2:6 and Psalm 8.


    John
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  2. David T

    David T Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    7,533
    Ratings:
    +2,806
    Ok the bible is poetry by very wierd folk you do not understand.

    Whats your iq and your neuology type. I expect a 150 or higher btw.
     
  3. KenS

    KenS Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2013
    Messages:
    7,551
    Ratings:
    +2,020
    Religion:
    Judeo/Christian
    Can you rephrase as to why the Rabbi finds in nearly impossible?
     
  4. The Reverend Bob

    The Reverend Bob Fart Machine and Beastmaster

    Joined:
    May 19, 2019
    Messages:
    3,605
    Ratings:
    +1,732
    Religion:
    Non-realist
    Psalm 2:6 is correctly translated as anoint (past tense) if you ask me. Why do you think it should be translated "pour out" and what does that signify to you?
     
  5. John D. Brey

    John D. Brey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Messages:
    1,166
    Ratings:
    +76
    . . . I'm saying that it's as nearly impossible for Rabbi Hirsch to read the literal translation of the text as it would be for our own Tumah to read it rightly. Jews refuse to read a text that says the Son of God is poured out as an offering even if that's what the writer of Psalms 2:6-7 made explicitly clear.



    John
     
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  6. John D. Brey

    John D. Brey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Messages:
    1,166
    Ratings:
    +76
    Ok . . . let me ask you. Why do you think a word that's never used for "anoint" in any other passage, and which has a meaning of its own "pour out," should be interpreted "anoint"?


    John
     
  7. The Reverend Bob

    The Reverend Bob Fart Machine and Beastmaster

    Joined:
    May 19, 2019
    Messages:
    3,605
    Ratings:
    +1,732
    Religion:
    Non-realist
    I asked first. Answer me then I will answer you
     
  8. KenS

    KenS Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2013
    Messages:
    7,551
    Ratings:
    +2,020
    Religion:
    Judeo/Christian
    I would agree that many Jews refuse to accept it as a poured out offering.

    Thank you for rephrasing.
     
Loading...