Overture
For the choir director; according to Shushan Eduth. A Mikhtam of David, to teach; when he struggled with Aram-naharaim and with Aram-zobah, and Joab returned, and smote twelve thousand of Edom in the Valley of Salt. Psalm 60:1-2 [Hebrew text] NASB translation
Shushan Eduth – A mikhtam is, ah, no one quite knows for sure. The word appears in six psalms. It might refer to some sort of instrument or to some technical information concerning the psalms where it appears. It could be a synonym for a psalm of atonement or expiation. Or it might be a reference to an inscription. Here we have an example of a word that was understood when it was written but is no longer understood today. That raises an interesting theological question. If God supervised the transmission and integrity of the text over thousands of years, why would He allow the loss of meaning of one (or more) of the words in the text? If there are God’s words, shouldn’t they be understandable to all the readers? And if one word can fall into obscurity, what about others? What does it mean to assert that God oversaw the writing of the Bible?
Shushan Eduth presents us with the same difficulties. Is it a tune? Is it an instrument? It is a technical summary? Scholars are at a loss so many translations leave it in its phonetic form. How are we supposed to know what David had in mind? Does it matter?
The psalm is intended to teach. But who are the pupils? Furthermore, the military context of this “instruction” doesn’t fit into biblical history. The psalm suggests that David fought with Aram-naharaim, but where and when? Naharaim means “two rivers” and designates a place in northern Mesopotamia. A place David never visited. Aram-zobah was a kingdom north of Damascus. David did engage in battle with the “Arameans” (2 Samuel 8:3-8) and Joab was the commanding general, but 2 Samuel 8:13 and 1 Chronicles 18:12 recount the deaths of 18,000 Edomites, not 12,000. Furthermore, 2 Samuel attributes the deaths to David, not Joab. The Valley of Salt is probably the Dead Sea, but the battle there is attributed to Abishai, brother of Joab (1 Chronicles). All in all, the opening lines of this psalm, part of the “inspired” text in the Tanakh, present us with more questions than answers, not least of which is this: “Does it really matter?”
Well, does it? Most Western Bible translations seem to think it doesn’t. The verse is relegated to either small point and unnumbered status or ignored altogether (Logos Bible software doesn’t even include it in Psalm 60). In other words, this psalm is universalized. It becomes a “lament over defeat in battle, a prayer for help,”[1] rather than a context-specific jeremiad (yes, I know, you will probably have to look it up in a dictionary). If we think that the Bible was written for all who read it, that it contains universal, timeless truths, then the context that prompted David to write these words to this audience doesn’t really matter, does it? But if we want to know why David wrote these words, then we need to know the actual circumstances of the writing. And at this point in history, that seems to be impossible.
So we proceed. We read the rest of the psalm as if it describes the condition of every man, not just David. We internalize the words so that they seem to be written to us. We draw comfort and strength without asking, “What was happening to David?” It’s like reading Shakespeare as if he were a playwright in Manhattan. Or Moses as it he were a preacher at St. Patrick’s. Yeshua, the universal man, has lots of company by the time we are done.
Ah, now you’re probably discouraged (or angry). If the Bible isn’t written for me, then what good is it? I need God’s word for me today, not the lament of some Hebrew king 3000 years ago. The key is to separate text and the author’s context from application in our context. The Bible does speak to me in its application, but application is not the same as the author’s text, and application will not be the same for you as it is for me. If I confuse text and application, I am likely to say something foolish like, “Well, this is what the text means to me,” and think that the guidance of the Spirit has whispered the truth about the text in my ear.
Topical Index: shushan eduth, mikhtam, context, application, Psalm 60:1-2 Hebrew text
[1] The heading of Psalm 60 in the NASB
Very valid arguments and conclusion.
Have you studied the pictographs of the pre-paleo?
Not yet
Hmm. Well, instead of becoming dismayed over things I don’t understand, such as a jeremiad (I like new words I have to look up) I will continue to accept and
apply what is revealed to me…and there is plenty of that to work on applying to my daily walk. BTW, sorry to have missed your St. Joseph meetings with Bob Gorelik but I look forward to hearing about them from my brother and sister in law.
I too am sorry we didn’t see you. Maybe next time.
“Does it really matter?”… Most Western Bible translations seem to think it doesn’t.”
Though today’s blog is thought provoking, it also raises for me a question. In the Tehillim, ArtScroll Tanach Series published by Mesorah Publications, verse one is prefaced [It is essential to be aware of the background and the setting of this composition.] Do you find any helpful credence to the Talmudic commentaries such are quoted there? Or is your commentary only focused on Western translations?
Rabbinic commentaries are often very helpful, particularly so because they do not ignore any of the text as most Western translations seem to. But rabbinic commentaries have their own paradigmatic slant as well (cf. the commentaries on Song of Songs) so always one must read and sort, read and sort.
I have noticed that Sun Tzu’s book The Art Of War, appears to be the new darling on the block. Everybody seems to be carrying a copy these days. If you didn’t know, this is supposedly a very ancient book, written (perhaps) by a Chinese tactician @500 BCE, and used ever since as a guide to war. Nowadays it seems to be considered a valuable aid to war in the boardroom, too. It seems people have been arguing about exactly who wrote it, how and why for millennia, but that does not seem to have stopped any of us from finding a use for it. Even I think the concept of ‘taking whole’ some of the best advice for love I have ever seen. (See, I can even find a use for it for peace! LOL!)
What is truth? You can go try to apply that question to everything, and it can seem to fit, which is why I think we keep trying to apply it. Truth is regarded as some sort of key to the lock of reality, which we seem to want to open like some Pandora’s Box, ever looking for a leg up; an advantage OVER that reality, with this stuff we think of as ‘truth’ used as a crow bar for that box lid. Really?
Perhaps we could consider starting over. Perhaps we could even get suspicious about the fact that we always seem to find what we seek. Yeshua said that we would, but I think we can make a mistake if we assume that what we seek is the truth. No, I think the truth(!) is that what we seek in the flesh is “guns, gold and girls” more than it is the truth. Truth is regarded as the vehicle to deliver those advantages to our doorstep. If we regard life as a struggle for survival, which the flesh does, and survival as a function of the fittest, and the fittest as those who are the possessors of the truth vehicle that delivers What We Want, then truth becomes just one more aid to survival. Is it?
We find what we seek, even in scripture. Greek thought is focused on the What of the Finding, but what if reality is about the Way of the Seeking? What if truth is a function of the question, and not the prisoner of the answer? What if love conquers all because it is focused on being able to use everything in front of it, which is a function of ability, and for that reason, does not need to focus on WHAT is in front of it? Even death seems to be able to be used by love to deliver the object of love, which is life. The truth about love is that the question is not about survival of the fittest, but about the fitting of life back to all. (See; it is about “taking whole”!)
If you don’t mind a little editorial comments:
1) You wrote: If there are God’s words, shouldn’t they be understandable to all the readers?
Should this read?: If “these” are…
2) (Logos Bible software doesn’t even include it in Psalm 60)
I think you need to remove this comment. In my version of Logos, the following Bible versions have it listed: NKJV, YLT, NASB, KJV, NIV, ESV, and CJB. I stopped looking after this many versions had it.
“It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.” Proverbs 25:2
Skip
Can you explain to me how application is different for each of us but that saying “well this is what the text means to me” is wrong? They seem to be the same thing but obviously I am not understanding the difference between the two. Thanks
Sure. Application is what the text means to me, how it affects me, how it confronts me. But only ME. Exegesis is what the text meant when the original author wrote it and the original audience understood when they heard it.
Ok but that is semantics right? People will respond to the Word according to how they view it. If they say “this is what the text means to me” or if they say “this is how I apply this text to my life” either way they are interpreting it for themselves in their current situation no?
Yes, but that is NOT the same as saying, “This is what the text MEANS?” That is exegesis and it is NOT the same as what it means to me. In fact, if I don’t know what the author meant to communicate to the ORIGINAL audience, then I don’t know what the text says or means regardless of MY personal devotional experience. This confusion is rampant in evangelical circles.
Yes it is!!! And frustrating to have discussions about biblical things with those that choose to interpret scripture that way. I was certain I was not understanding you correctly.
Thanks for taking the time to explain.
Interpretations of translated versions of the written Word can be messy, when we read into the texts through added and subtracted material like commas, capital letters to him, his, etc.. to denote divinity,
and re-arranged sentences to make sense….
“Evidence of Editing: Growth and Change of Texts in the Hebrew Bible” By Reinhard Müller, is an ebook of interest on the same topic as Skip’s in TW.
“so always one must read and sort, read and sort.” Skip. Amein!
And learn to hear and discern.
(Poor) Pilate the Perturbed Purblind Politician
~ Christ [our Savior] is the end [sum, culmination, goal] of the Law to everyone who believes ~ (Romans 10.4)
With “Truth Incarnate” standing right in front of his eyes, Pilate asked, “What is Truth?”
(John 18.38)
It has been said, and I certainly find this to be true in my own experience, — the best place to hide something from a man is “right in front of him.”
Should the Messiah have answered Pilate, “Here am I?” [Heneni]. He certainly could have and with no stretch of the imagination either. In the everlasting words of our Redeemer, the gospel [good news] which Pilate apparently never had heard of, “I AM the Way -the Truth- and the Life!” No man, [no, not one] comes to the Father, but by Me! (John 14.6)