Comments for תהלים

Comment on Qumran and the growth of the Psalter by James Allman

James Allman — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 13:07:03 +0000

It seems to me inappropriate to argue from Qumran to broader issues of canon for two reasons. First, it is clear that Qumran does not represent normative Judaism. It is rather a splinter group whose commitments and practices were not likely widespread throughout the JEwish world. Second, it is not clear what the function of any one scroll, even a biblical scroll, may have been. 11QPsa may or may not have been a “canonical” scroll or even have originated at Qumran. If it originated at Qumran, it may have functioned like Hodayoth. Questions of canon may be involved in these issues, but they may not. Isn’t it a bit early to be drawing these conclusions?

Comment on Athanasius, Mary and Ps. 45 by Richard

Richard — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 16:43:45 +0000

The first comes from Epist. ad Marcellin. in Interpret. Psalm sec. 1. I am not sure about the second.

Comment on Psalm 19 & Philippians 4 by Rich Walker

Rich Walker — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 22:09:05 +0000

Some translations “restoring the soul” some say “converting the soul” which is the best ?
And what are presumptuous sins, or wilful sins that make them so diffferent?

Comment on Athanasius, Mary and Ps. 45 by John Conlon

John Conlon — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 20:46:56 +0000

Please can you give me the reference for the statement by Athanasius, where it is found

Thank you very much

John Conlon

Comment on Law, Prophets and Psalms by Richard

Richard — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 19:30:57 +0000

Why do you think that statement supports a third section of the canon? I’d be interested to see that fleshed out.

Comment on Law, Prophets and Psalms by Rob Kashow

Rob Kashow — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 18:23:50 +0000

I don’t think you have to suggest the canon was settled (nor am I suggesting that) in order to see that the Psalms as representative of this third section (incomplete and messy) of the Tanak. It probably was unsettled and that’s likely why its referred to as the Psalms and not the Writings. I would find it difficult to suggest that the Law and the Prophets were not in tact as two parts of the canon. How do you address the Christ’s statement “from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah” that also seems to support a third section of the canon (though again, not necessarily complete)?

Comment on Law, Prophets and Psalms by Richard

Richard — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:28:55 +0000

Rob, I am not convinced that the tri-partite canon had been settled upon by the time of Jesus and the Apostles. I don’t think the evidence points in that direction.

Comment on Law, Prophets and Psalms by Rob Kashow

Rob Kashow — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 22:12:28 +0000

Are you against the idea of a tri-partite canon? Thus, Law, Prophets, and Psalms as a representative of the Writings since most orders place it as the first book in the writings.

Comment on Calvin, Psalm 2 and eternal generation by Cody

Cody — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 17:31:15 +0000

I would start by appealing to various Scriptures, for instance:
“No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God [or Son], he has revealed him” (John 1:18)

John 5:26 “For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself.”

Colossians 1:19 “For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell.”

It seems that Jesus is begotten not in the sense that He is made or born a human, but that He is the eternal Son of the Father, before time. Not in exactly the same way that we have sons, but something at least somewhat similar to it. The Son finds His life in the Father, who is the Head of the Son. If this were not so, John 5 would not say that the Father had GRANTED life to be in the Son. This is historical Orthodox Christianity, as even the Council of Nicea argues:
“Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.”

This is also implicit in Jesus being called “the Word,” a Jewish concept in the Aramaic translations of Scripture (the Targums) of God using His Word (aramaic “Memra”) to create the universe– this Word comes from God and is identified with God, but is also a mediator between God and creation. The Word comes from the very being of God and is not created, but is an extension of God and submits to Him.

Comment on Calvin, Psalm 2 and eternal generation by Richard

Richard — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 16:47:38 +0000

Thanks for your comment Cody, how would you construct an argument in favour of eternal generation if Ps. 2:7 cannot be used as proof? For what it’s worth, I would appeal to Ps. 2:7 using Rahner’s formula.