www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Scripture and Patristic Writings New Jerome Biblical Commentary

Brad
You may be inept at foreign languages but there are english - greek translations of the septuagint.
For me it is the final authority. Of course the vulgate has pride of usage in the Latin Church and is to be the text for dispute on all doctrinal issues.
Stephanos I

I personally like the International Bible Commentary from The Liturgical Press. What do people here think of this one?

I have asked a question in the AHC (Assoc. of Hebrew Catholics) discussion forum but no one answered it. Joe would you help? What does the JPS Tanakh say about the author of Psalm 110?

This was my posted question:

I have a question on Psalm 110, (109 in the Douay-Rheims).

The RSV, NIV, NASB, NKJV, NAB, and the Confraternity Challoner-Rheims Version all say "A Psalm of David." The Confraternity Version says that it is recognized that David is the author of this Psalm.

FOOTNOTE FROM CONFRATERNITY-DOUAY BIBLE
109, 1: The force of our Lord's argument from this passage is as follows: David was universally recognized as the author of this psalm, which was acknowledged by all as referring to the Messias; but the psalmist addresses the Messias as his superior; therefore the Messias must be David's superior and not merely his "son" or descendant. Cf. Mt 22,41-45 and parallels.

The Douay-Rheims states it is "A Psalm For David."

MikeF on Jews for Judaism states (post 12826): << The Hebrew reads: L'Dovid mizmor, meaning "A Psalm for David," or as the Artscroll translation renders it., "Regarding David; a psalm."

"A Psalm by David" would be Mizmor l'Dovid.

The Artscroll commentary, based on Ibn Ezra and Radak, says, "An inspired, unnamed psalmist composed this psalm about his king, David." >>

Which is correct? Jesus states in Luke 20:41-44 "41 Then Jesus said to them, "How is it that they say the Christ is the Son of David? 42 David himself declares in the Book of Psalms: "'The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand 43 until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet." ' 44 David calls him 'Lord.' How then can he be his son?"". (see also Mt 22,41-45)

How do I reconcile this? Who is right? Why is the DRV saying the same thing as the Artscroll version while the Confraternity reverses the DRV? I'm confused.

Shalom HaMoshiach Yeshua,

BradM

My personal impression was that it would be outstanding, but at the time I considered it for purchase I was a little bit low on cash. So I can't say, but thanks for bringing it up, I may want to purchase one depending on whatever comments may bubble up here!

Michael

Brad,

Your questions seemed to be almost straightforward until you included the bit on Luke 20:41-44. This inclusion compounds your question since it also deals with the problem of inferiority (sonship-lordship).

But to answer you first question about the JPS Tanakh. The recent edition states:

�110 Of David. A psalm.� � �LDVD MZMVR�

Joe

PS: cf. Luke 1:32.

Joe, it seems the Artscroll and the JPS have the same Hebrew but the scholars translate it differently. the JPS "Of David. A Psalm" means to me that David is the author and this is what the New Testament places on the words of Jesus, that David was the author. So for some reason, the Artscroll scholars want to change the authorship from David to an "unnamed psalmist" to make it look like Jesus didn't know what He was talking about!

I just went and opened my Septuagint by Brenton and on page 767 is says of this psalm 109 (110) "A psalm of David."

Hmmm. Artscroll seems to be the favored translation of the Jews on Jews for Judaism, this must be one of the reasons.

- BradM

Translations are fun, aren't they? The issue of authorship is even more fun.

Now, what exactly do you think Luke meant by what he wrote?

Joe

You mean in this quote?

Now the verse "Lord said to my Lord" this is actually "YHWH (Yahweh) says to my Lord (adonai)" correct?

And we can understand this as "YHWH (Yahweh, God the Father) says to my Lord (adonai, God the Son Jesus Christ)"

Since David is the author and he calls the Messiah "his Lord" that Jesus was telling the teachers of the law that the Messiah would be more than a "son of David" of the seed of David (only human), this is a reference to Jesus' divinity. That David when he was writing in the Spirit was leaving us a clue that the Messiah is his superior and Lord/Master, and the only way his son could be his Lord, Master, and superior is if the "Son of David" is also the "Son of God."

Did I miss anything?

- BradM

BradM,

I have the Haydock Old and New Testament. I bought the set about six months ago. It's absolutely incredible. EVERYTHING has Patristic commentary. If anything, it's overly specific. One little verse may have a half page (biiig pages) of 6 font commentary!

Logos Teen

Really? I personally prefer the RSVCE, but this sounds like just what I was looking for. It is difficult to find resources for patristic commentary on specific verses, well at least more than just the most "popular" Fathers and also without having to wade through a lot of dross. Btw, is there an Orthodox equivalent to the Haydock Bible with patristic commentary? I'd be very interested in seeing it...

It is expensive, Michael, that's true. However, I like it because the commentary seeks to incorporate many opinions from a more orthodox view. The section on the Eucharist and the NT was instructive.

I just bought me a used copy of the Jerome Biblical Commentary and I own the New Jerome Biblical Commentary.

After a quick perusal of the two they look quite similar.

Does anyone know the main differences between the two? (sorry I have no time right now to re-read this thread incase I am asking a question already answered, pardon me if that is the case.)

Thank you,

BradM