UnderGround Forums
 

HolyGround >> Pslam 110:1 & and it's relations to the Gospels


7/19/13 6:37 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
sparkuri
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 07/19/13 6:46 AM
Member Since: 8/4/08
Posts: 14669
 

I was reading Mark earlier and came across a puzzling piece that I didn't know was with controversy.

Jesus is talking to the Pharisees in Mark 12:36 and refers to Psalm 110:1, and I didn't understand how it applied.

I did a little digging, and a rabbi described it as a deliberate mistranslation.

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

 

 

"David himself speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared: " ' The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet"'.

When my Bible gave me the reference to Psalm 110, the first "Lord" is actually "LORD", but the New testament(NIV) does not point this out. Veeerrryy important, as some believe Jesus is pointing out that he is the Messiah, but when I read Psalms, it seemed like the writer of the Psalm was saying 'God told David'. "The LORD to my lord", as if written by a servant.

 

7/19/13 6:39 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
sparkuri
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 8/4/08
Posts: 14670

It is also in Mathew 22:44, Luke 20:42, and Acts 2:34

7/19/13 9:15 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
770mdm
14 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/24/08
Posts: 1648

A David psalm.

The Lord's utterance to my master:  "Sit at My right hand till I make your enemies a stool for your feet."

To my master.  Though many translations render this as "my Lord," with a capital L, the Hebrew clearly shows 'adoni, with a first-person-singular suffix,whereas the nown at the beginning of verse 5 reads 'adonai, showing the plural suffix infariably used when the nown 'adon is a designation for God.  This is a royal psalm, and the speaker, by referring to the king as his master, would appear to be a court poet.  Robert Alter

7/19/13 6:05 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
sparkuri
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 07/19/13 6:06 PM
Member Since: 8/4/08
Posts: 14673
770mdm - 

A David psalm.

The Lord's utterance to my master:  "Sit at My right hand till I make your enemies a stool for your feet."

To my master.  Though many translations render this as "my Lord," with a capital L, the Hebrew clearly shows 'adoni, with a first-person-singular suffix,whereas the nown at the beginning of verse 5 reads 'adonai, showing the plural suffix infariably used when the nown 'adon is a designation for God.  This is a royal psalm, and the speaker, by referring to the king as his master, would appear to be a court poet.  Robert Alter

 


Yet it is written in Mark 12:35-36:

 

[While Jesus was teaching in the temple courts, he asked, "Why do the teachers of the law say that the Messiah is the son of David? David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit declared: "The Lord said to my Lord: 'Sit at my right hand, and I will make your enemies a footstool for your feet'"

David himself calls him 'Lord'. How then can he be his son?]

 

There is a lot more here than that.

 

It is argued the the 2nd 'Lord' actually derives from the Hebrew word  ???????? ; (pronounced Ladonee')

"The correct and only translation of ladonee is “to my master” or “to my lord.” The Hebrew word adonee never refers to God anywhere in the Bible. It is used only to address a person, never God. That is to say, God, the Creator of the universe, is never called adonee in the Bible. There are many words reserved for God in the Bible; adonee, however, is not one of them."

http://www.outreachjudaism.org/articles/lord-said.html

 

This is important, because either the translations were purposely changed, or we are wrong in assessing that this psalm was written by David's servant, as Jesus says "David himself said".

That or Jesus didn't know who actually wrote the psalm.

That, or something else different entirely. Perhaps instead of "David himself", rather "The book of David itself".

 

 

 

THIS QUESTION IS PARAMOUNT.

7/19/13 7:41 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
770mdm
14 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/24/08
Posts: 1650

I'll look at the Hebrew and I have a couple other translations & ask around.   Interesting -

7/19/13 8:00 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
770mdm
14 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/24/08
Posts: 1651

So being lazy looking at the Hebrew off the site you posted it references one of Gods hames - the Yud Hey Vuv Hey then says Ladonee.  La - is 'to' & Adonee is an important human person.  So it says "Hashem to master "  Which when translating means Hashem is addressing the master/dignitary/important person.  I'll look over Shabbat and see if I can find anything else but it's an easy translation God is addressing a person. 

7/19/13 8:02 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
770mdm
14 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/24/08
Posts: 1652

The confusion is probably because Jews don't verbally say the Yawheh name instead they say Adonai but the second word is actually the word in Hebrew Adonoi so if a Jew were reading it it would sound like Adonai LaAdonee.  But the first word you can see is actually a different word then the second..  Hope that helps - sorry for the multiple posts...

7/19/13 8:36 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
sparkuri
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 8/4/08
Posts: 14679
So from a Christian perspective, and at first glance, this is a serious problem.

When referenced in the New Testament, LORD( The first time), was not capitalized.
Why?
And if trying to hide it, why reference it where it is capitalized?
What exactly was Jesus saying? Phone Post
7/23/13 11:22 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Kung Fu Joe
4 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 3/27/09
Posts: 946
sparkuri - So from a Christian perspective, and at first glance, this is a serious problem.

When referenced in the New Testament, LORD( The first time), was not capitalized.
Why?
And if trying to hide it, why reference it where it is capitalized?
What exactly was Jesus saying? Phone Post
The reason the word is rendered as "LORD" in the Old Testament is because it is a translation of the Tetragrammaton, and tradition prevents us from pronouncing the name of God.

However, the word being translated in the New Testament is NOT the Hebrew Tetragrammaton. It is the Greek word "kyrios," which means "lord" or "master." Hence, no need for capitalization.

However, the author's understanding and intent behind Mark 12:36-37 is another matter. Phone Post
7/26/13 5:02 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
sparkuri
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 8/4/08
Posts: 14749
Kung Fu Joe - 
sparkuri - So from a Christian perspective, and at first glance, this is a serious problem.

When referenced in the New Testament, LORD( The first time), was not capitalized.
Why?
And if trying to hide it, why reference it where it is capitalized?
What exactly was Jesus saying? Phone Post
The reason the word is rendered as "LORD" in the Old Testament is because it is a translation of the Tetragrammaton, and tradition prevents us from pronouncing the name of God.

However, the word being translated in the New Testament is NOT the Hebrew Tetragrammaton. It is the Greek word "kyrios," which means "lord" or "master." Hence, no need for capitalization.

However, the author's understanding and intent behind Mark 12:36-37 is another matter. Phone Post

Then "Kyrios" was used both times?

Even if so, all of it was translated to English. Why not just quote Psalms properly?

7/26/13 8:24 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Kung Fu Joe
4 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 3/27/09
Posts: 947
sparkuri -
Kung Fu Joe - 
sparkuri - So from a Christian perspective, and at first glance, this is a serious problem.

When referenced in the New Testament, LORD( The first time), was not capitalized.
Why?
And if trying to hide it, why reference it where it is capitalized?
What exactly was Jesus saying? Phone Post
The reason the word is rendered as "LORD" in the Old Testament is because it is a translation of the Tetragrammaton, and tradition prevents us from pronouncing the name of God.

However, the word being translated in the New Testament is NOT the Hebrew Tetragrammaton. It is the Greek word "kyrios," which means "lord" or "master." Hence, no need for capitalization.

However, the author's understanding and intent behind Mark 12:36-37 is another matter. Phone Post

Then "Kyrios" was used both times?

Even if so, all of it was translated to English. Why not just quote Psalms properly?

Yes, "kyrios" was used in both instances of what we now read as "lord."

The reason they did not change the quote to match the OT is because most modern translators translate what was actually written, not what they feel the author SHOULD have written.

An excellent case of this can be found in Matthew. In Mat 1:23, the author quotes from Isaiah. But he didn't quote the Hebrew-- he quotes a Greek translation, which used the word "parthenos," which means "virgin." However, the original Hebrew word, "almah," simply refers to a young woman, with no implicit connotation of her sexual experience. However, no translator would ever think to change Matthew 1:23 in order to make it actually agree with Isaiah 7:14. Phone Post
7/26/13 11:25 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
MEOWticket
381 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 11/11/08
Posts: 6747
Kung Fu Joe -
sparkuri -
Kung Fu Joe - 
sparkuri - So from a Christian perspective, and at first glance, this is a serious problem.

When referenced in the New Testament, LORD( The first time), was not capitalized.
Why?
And if trying to hide it, why reference it where it is capitalized?
What exactly was Jesus saying? Phone Post
The reason the word is rendered as "LORD" in the Old Testament is because it is a translation of the Tetragrammaton, and tradition prevents us from pronouncing the name of God.

However, the word being translated in the New Testament is NOT the Hebrew Tetragrammaton. It is the Greek word "kyrios," which means "lord" or "master." Hence, no need for capitalization.

However, the author's understanding and intent behind Mark 12:36-37 is another matter. Phone Post

Then "Kyrios" was used both times?

Even if so, all of it was translated to English. Why not just quote Psalms properly?

Yes, "kyrios" was used in both instances of what we now read as "lord."

The reason they did not change the quote to match the OT is because most modern translators translate what was actually written, not what they feel the author SHOULD have written.

An excellent case of this can be found in Matthew. In Mat 1:23, the author quotes from Isaiah. But he didn't quote the Hebrew-- he quotes a Greek translation, which used the word "parthenos," which means "virgin." However, the original Hebrew word, "almah," simply refers to a young woman, with no implicit connotation of her sexual experience. However, no translator would ever think to change Matthew 1:23 in order to make it actually agree with Isaiah 7:14. Phone Post
That crossed my mind before. But you would think a young devout Jewish girl would be a virgin, no? Phone Post
7/26/13 11:39 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Kung Fu Joe
4 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 3/27/09
Posts: 948
It doesn't mean "young girl." It means "young woman." The same Hebrew word is applied elsewhere to married women and mothers who are still young in age, as well as unmarried young women. Phone Post
7/26/13 12:28 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
MEOWticket
381 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 11/11/08
Posts: 6750
Kung Fu Joe - It doesn't mean "young girl." It means "young woman." The same Hebrew word is applied elsewhere to married women and mothers who are still young in age, as well as unmarried young women. Phone Post
My mistake! Phone Post
7/26/13 12:54 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Kung Fu Joe
4 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 3/27/09
Posts: 949
No worries.

But, yeah, getting back to the topic, normally in cases like this, I would say the author was quoting from the Septuagint, which often explains differences between the NT quotes of the OT, and the actual OT text (as is the case for Mat 1:23/Isa 7:14).

However, the Septuagint (at least, as we have it) has a very different text for Psalm 110 than the Masoretic Hebrew. It's not just a different word or two, or even an added verse-- it is an entirely different passage.

This leads me to believe that either the author of Mark used a different Greek translation of the OT for Psalm 110, or else he translated it from the Hebrew, himself. I find the latter idea somewhat dubious, but it isn't outside the realm of possibility. I would say that it is quite likely that the author was borrowing from some other Greek translation. Phone Post
7/26/13 12:59 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Kung Fu Joe
4 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 3/27/09
Posts: 950
Scratch that last post-- I spoke too soon. Apparently, there is some peculiarity in the ordering of the Psalms in the Septuagint. Psalm 110 appears as Psalm 109 in the LXX.

And, sure enough, the LXX of the passage reads with "kyrios" in place of both the Tetragrammaton and the word "adonai." Phone Post
7/26/13 3:34 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
sparkuri
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 8/4/08
Posts: 14754
Kung Fu Joe -
sparkuri -
Kung Fu Joe - 
sparkuri - So from a Christian perspective, and at first glance, this is a serious problem.

When referenced in the New Testament, LORD( The first time), was not capitalized.
Why?
And if trying to hide it, why reference it where it is capitalized?
What exactly was Jesus saying? Phone Post
The reason the word is rendered as "LORD" in the Old Testament is because it is a translation of the Tetragrammaton, and tradition prevents us from pronouncing the name of God.

However, the word being translated in the New Testament is NOT the Hebrew Tetragrammaton. It is the Greek word "kyrios," which means "lord" or "master." Hence, no need for capitalization.

However, the author's understanding and intent behind Mark 12:36-37 is another matter. Phone Post

Then "Kyrios" was used both times?

Even if so, all of it was translated to English. Why not just quote Psalms properly?

Yes, "kyrios" was used in both instances of what we now read as "lord."

The reason they did not change the quote to match the OT is because most modern translators translate what was actually written, not what they feel the author SHOULD have written.

An excellent case of this can be found in Matthew. In Mat 1:23, the author quotes from Isaiah. But he didn't quote the Hebrew-- he quotes a Greek translation, which used the word "parthenos," which means "virgin." However, the original Hebrew word, "almah," simply refers to a young woman, with no implicit connotation of her sexual experience. However, no translator would ever think to change Matthew 1:23 in order to make it actually agree with Isaiah 7:14. Phone Post
Good stuff KFJ.
I saw this as a possibility.
Even the example you used for Mathew 1 makes me wonder:
Why translate a book for one language from Greek, whos origin was Hebrew anyway?
The whole point is accuracy, so why purposely get lost in translation?

(Not asking you, just wondering why!) Phone Post
7/26/13 5:34 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Kung Fu Joe
4 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 3/27/09
Posts: 951
sparkuri -
Kung Fu Joe -
sparkuri -
Kung Fu Joe - 
sparkuri - So from a Christian perspective, and at first glance, this is a serious problem.

When referenced in the New Testament, LORD( The first time), was not capitalized.
Why?
And if trying to hide it, why reference it where it is capitalized?
What exactly was Jesus saying? Phone Post
The reason the word is rendered as "LORD" in the Old Testament is because it is a translation of the Tetragrammaton, and tradition prevents us from pronouncing the name of God.

However, the word being translated in the New Testament is NOT the Hebrew Tetragrammaton. It is the Greek word "kyrios," which means "lord" or "master." Hence, no need for capitalization.

However, the author's understanding and intent behind Mark 12:36-37 is another matter. Phone Post

Then "Kyrios" was used both times?

Even if so, all of it was translated to English. Why not just quote Psalms properly?

Yes, "kyrios" was used in both instances of what we now read as "lord."

The reason they did not change the quote to match the OT is because most modern translators translate what was actually written, not what they feel the author SHOULD have written.

An excellent case of this can be found in Matthew. In Mat 1:23, the author quotes from Isaiah. But he didn't quote the Hebrew-- he quotes a Greek translation, which used the word "parthenos," which means "virgin." However, the original Hebrew word, "almah," simply refers to a young woman, with no implicit connotation of her sexual experience. However, no translator would ever think to change Matthew 1:23 in order to make it actually agree with Isaiah 7:14. Phone Post
Good stuff KFJ.
I saw this as a possibility.
Even the example you used for Mathew 1 makes me wonder:
Why translate a book for one language from Greek, whos origin was Hebrew anyway?
The whole point is accuracy, so why purposely get lost in translation?

(Not asking you, just wondering why!) Phone Post
I'm not sure I understand what you're asking, here, but I hope this helps.

Psalm 110 was originally written in Hebrew. However, the author of Mark was a Greek speaker, and he likely was only familiar with the Greek translation of the OT, not the original Hebrew (just like modern American preachers are usually only familiar with English translations, and not the original languages).

So the Psalmist wrote in Hebrew, and we translate his words from Hebrew; but the gospel writers wrote in Greek, so we must translate their words from Greek. Phone Post
7/28/13 2:48 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
770mdm
14 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/24/08
Posts: 1655
Must? Why must you? Phone Post 3.0
7/29/13 8:16 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Kung Fu Joe
4 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 3/27/09
Posts: 952
770mdm - Must? Why must you? Phone Post 3.0
...because, otherwise, we are not translating the authors' words.

If we "translate" what we think the author should have written, instead of translating what was actually written, we are being dishonest. Phone Post
7/29/13 3:30 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
770mdm
14 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/24/08
Posts: 1658

Wait a sec I maybe not hearing you correctly. 

So the Psalmist wrote in Hebrew, and we translate his words from Hebrew; but the gospel writers wrote in Greek, so we must translate their words from Greek. Phone Post


If the Gospel writers translate the Psalm into Greek, Incorectly mind you, why then go with the Gospels incorrect translation instead of the original Hebrew? 

7/29/13 3:53 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Kung Fu Joe
4 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 3/27/09
Posts: 956
770mdm -

Wait a sec I maybe not hearing you correctly. 

So the Psalmist wrote in Hebrew, and we translate his words from Hebrew; but the gospel writers wrote in Greek, so we must translate their words from Greek. Phone Post


If the Gospel writers translate the Psalm into Greek, Incorectly mind you, why then go with the Gospels incorrect translation instead of the original Hebrew? 

The gospel writers did not translate the passage from Hebrew to Greek. They were quoting from a preexisting Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures-- most likely, the Septuagint.

Regardless, once again, the point of translation is to translate the words which were written, not to interpolate what we think should have been written. We want to understand the document, not to change it.

Seriously, the Bible suffers from more than enough interpretive problems without encouraging people to just "correct" any text with which they disagree. Phone Post
7/29/13 5:55 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
770mdm
14 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/24/08
Posts: 1659

Really?  So here is what we have so far.  Hebrew Psalmist wrote Psalm 110.  Septuigant transcribers translate the Hebrew incorrectly - Gospel writers translate the word incorectly - so even though the Original Hebrew reflects something different you're going with the mistranslation?  These little subtle changes reverberate pretty huge impactful changes.  This makes no sense.  We are not interperting what we think the words should be we are interpreting the actual words!  It's Christianity - or whomever is using Gospel or Septuigant translations - that's interpolating what we Think should have been written yes? 

7/30/13 8:37 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Kung Fu Joe
4 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 3/27/09
Posts: 959
770mdm -

Really?  So here is what we have so far.  Hebrew Psalmist wrote Psalm 110.  Septuigant transcribers translate the Hebrew incorrectly - Gospel writers translate the word incorectly - so even though the Original Hebrew reflects something different you're going with the mistranslation?  These little subtle changes reverberate pretty huge impactful changes.  This makes no sense.  We are not interperting what we think the words should be we are interpreting the actual words!  It's Christianity - or whomever is using Gospel or Septuigant translations - that's interpolating what we Think should have been written yes? 

No.

Firstly, I disagree that the Septuagint translated Psalm 110 incorrectly. There is no Greek equivalent of the Tetragrammaton, and traditionally-- when read aloud-- Hebrew teachers would replace it with "Adonai" to avoid intoning the name of God. Therefore, the Septuagint consistently translates the Tetragrammaton using "kyrios," for the same reason.

Secondly, when we translate a text, we need to translate the text that exists. If the author of Mark made mistakes, it is not the translator's job to correct them-- his job is to translate them.

Let's look at my example from Matthew 1:23, again. This was a case where the Septuagint did, in fact, mistranslate "almah" with "parthenos." However, we cannot alter what the author of Matthew wrote in order to fit the actual Hebrew of Isaiah because it is clear the gospel writer understood that passage exactly as he quoted it. Matthew's account of the virgin birth is absolutely dependent upon that mistaken understanding of Isaiah 7:14.

When a New Testament author quotes the Hebrew Scriptures, we are translating what that author wrote; we are not translating the original verse. When we think they've gotten something wrong, we can't just alter the words they wrote at our own arbitrary whims. A person could literally make any Scripture say anything they wanted, if that were the case. Phone Post
7/30/13 9:56 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
770mdm
14 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/24/08
Posts: 1660

Well look at what's happening. Already we've heard on this thread that THIS QUESTION IS PARAMOUNT and from a Christian perspective, and at first glance, this is a serious problem.  Why exactly is this a serious problem?  How would a Jew understand this Psalm vs. how a Christian would understand it?  Does the road a Jew goes down after understaning this reading differ from the road a Christian goes down after understanding this passage? If so, is that a problem? 


Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.