Traditional Jewish commentary on Psalm 8: 4-6

I heard a teaching some time ago where the speaker made reference to Ps 8: 4-6. He said that traditional Jewish sources,unnamed, referred to this scripture as a record of a conversation between and angel and God some time just after creation where the angel asks God the question 'What is man?' a reasonable thought in the context since there had never been one before. Has anyone else ever heard of this? I have searched my resources and done some basic web searches but have not been able to locate any such on these verses. Can any one assist here?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

David Knoll

It comes in many versions. Start with Midrash Tankhuma (Buber Edition), Parshat bekhukotai 6:12

and in the Talmud: Sanhedrin 4

David Paul

There are a couple of things to consider, Peter. First, not only in Psalm 8, but also in Psalm 144:3, (one or both of which is referenced in Heb. 2:6), the authorship of the thought "What is man?" is ascribed to David. I've never found David's authorship to be suspect in the slightest, especially since he is famous for his introspection and prophetic insight. There is no contextual reason to assert or insert the presence of a third-party angel into this issue. Of course, such concerns have never stopped the rabbis before. Which leads to the second point, which is that the rabbis, while occasionally having a valuable insight to offer, are nothing more than commentators. Keeping in mind that a broken clock is right twice every day, the rabbis, like other bible commentators, tend to be wrong more often than right. That's not to say that I don't advocate familiarity with the rabbinical writings, because I have adovcated for a Logos version of the Talmud along with others and I will be able to examine David's references (Knoll's, not the king's) for myself in a matter of days when the Talmud is shipped. But, in this case, I think going with what the Bible says is wiser than the odd opinions and surmisings of men.

It occurs to me that you may or may not be aware of which Psalms are written by whom because certain versions of the Bible, such as most KJVs, inexplicably deleted the first verses of many Psalms (which contained authorship and musical style notations) since the compilers apparently felt confident enough to expunge material they felt YHWH had extraneously included.

David Knoll

Which leads to the second point, which is that the rabbis, while occasionally having a valuable insight to offer, are nothing more than commentators. Keeping in mind that a broken clock is right twice every day, the rabbis, like other bible commentators, tend to be wrong more often than right.

I think you don't understand the nature of midrash. It is not a commentary. Usually the text is merely a platform to deliver something else. It is an original creation of great value in its own right.

David Paul

That "definition" of midhraash is, of course, the Rabbinical definition, based on their own tradition and usage patterns. The word midhraash has its own unadorned meaning, which is "to investigate, seek, inquire, study". The difference, obviously, is that the unadorned (essentially denotative) meaning seeks to draw out what is already there to be discovered, whereas the Rabbinic (essentially connotative) meaning is, just as you said, to CREATE something "of great value in its own right".

If some folks reading this have the uncomfortable feeling that men are seeming to equate themselves and their surmisings with the value of Scripture, you aren't alone in your discomfort. They most certainly do, for that is one of the tenants of Pharisaic Rabbinic thought.

And therein lies the rub. The rabbis, by their own long-established tradition, have no problem "making stuff up" and asserting that it is of equivalent value, even SUPERIOR value, to the Tanakh itself. Even the twist they have given to the word midhraash itself is such an example. I could give many, many more such examples. But what else would you expect from a crew that insists that they, as the "sole interpreters" of Scripture, have a God-given right to contradict God?

I'm aware that you are a Hebrew scholar, David, so you know what I've just outlined, even though you may disagree with my explanation on some or all points.

David Paul

Let me add that, frankly, I don't care much what they come up with...for unless it agrees across the board with Scripture, it's just so much blather. If it agrees with Scripture, then I will consider it. That, as far as I am concerned, is the measure of its value. Period.

Only by that criterion does it have value, so it can't have "value in its own right", at least in my sight.

And one final thought--

unless someone is a legitimate naabhiy, then he or she is nothing more than a commentator.

DMB

David ... not to intrude too much into the argument but the apostle Paul seems to have extensively used midrash, especially in Romans. Indeed, one could argue (and upset a few souls in the process) that much of protestant theology is built on midrash sitting over top the OT. I'm currently reading http://www.logos.com/product/3815/biblical-exegesis-in-the-apostolic-period (who doesn't make that argument by the way).

BKMitchell

It comes in many versions. Start with Midrash Tankhuma (Buber Edition), Parshat bekhukotai 6:12

and in the Talmud: Sanhedrin 4

Great Answer,

I'll give you a home run for this one!

Sanhedrin 4 (38b)

אמר רב יהודה א"ר בשעה שבקש הקב"ה לבראות את האדם ברא כת אחת של מלאכי השרת
אמר להם רצונכם נעשה אדם בצלמנו אמרו לפניו רבש"ע מה מעשיו אמר להן כך וכך
מעשיו אמרו לפניו רבש"ע מה אנוש כי תזכרנו ובן אדם כי תפקדנו הושיט אצבעו קטנה ביניהן ושרפם וכן כת

For, people new to this thread a little word about Sanhedrin (38b) is as
follows: one must read carefully and think about what the various
characters in this section are attempting to deal with. While, not all
of the Teachers mentioned in this section agree with each others
conclusion, most are trying to deal with accusations raised by the
heterodoxical minim sect, that the first person common plural suffixs
utilized in the creation narratives denote something other than pure
monotheism. As the discussion develops other issues come in to play as
well.

And,

here is a link to Parshat Bekhutai 6:12 (link)

I also recommend reading Meforshim like RaDak(Rabbi David Kimhi)'s commentary on the Psalms found in most מקראות גדולות editions.

Peter

Thanks David, that is exactly what I wanted. I was sweating bullets over this.

Peter

Wow David, a lot of information there, none of it however answered the question. I was not looking for alternative authorship or building a doctrine based on Jewish tradition, simply trying to obtain a citation to confirm a source. The question "What is man?" is as old as man himself and in the context that I am using it, a discussion on the creation and fall. Using the citation by way of reference to Jewish tradition makes a nice quirky way of asking my participants the same question. The text of Psalm 6: 4-6, give a wonderful description of the relationship between God and man and provides assistance to my participants in understanding the pre fall relationship between God and Adam. Lets face it there had never been any creature like him before so lets ask the question.

BKMitchell

And, here is a translation of the quote from Talmud posted here earlier:

"R. Jehudah said in the name of Rabh: At the time the Holy One, blessed be He, was about to create a man, He created a coetus
of angels, and said to them: Would ye advise me to create a man? And
they asked Him: What will be his deeds? And He related before them such
and such. They explained before Him: Lord of the Universe, what is the
mortal, that Thou rememberest him, and the son of men, that Thou
thinkest of him? [Ps. vii. 5]. He then put His little finger among them
and they were all burnt.(p370)"

Bablyonian Talmud, Book 8: Tract Sanhedrin, tr. by Michael L. Rodkinson, [1918], at sacred-texts.com

Matthew C Jones

And, here is a translation of the quote from Talmud posted here earlier:

Thank you for the translation. Sounds intriguing.

I can barely see the Roman alphabet and couldn't read Hebrew even if I could see it. [Y]

David Knoll

I also recommend reading Meforshim like RaDak(Rabbi David Kimhi)'s commentary on the Psalms found in most מקראות גדולות editions.

In my edition (the new Cohen) Qimhi does not allude to that midrash in his commentary on the Psalms. Interestingly Rashi does, but neither there nor in Gen 1. Rashi mentions the midrash in Bereshit Raba 58:31:12 (Vilna) which is yet another midrashic version in his interpretation of Gen 6:17.

I think that you can learn something from Rashi's omission in Gen 1 and in Ps 8. Nachmanides even wonders about Rashi's quotation of the midrash in Gen 6:17. But I guess we have gone too far.

BKMitchell

In my edition (the new Cohen) Qimhi does not allude to that midrash in his commentary on the Psalms. I

Yes, but he does comment on the use of "Elohim" in reference to man in Psalm 8:6. Interestingly his interpretation seems to agree with the LXX in seeing "Elohim" as angles or supernatural beings rather than as God.

Thank you for bringing up Rashi, I hadn't though of that, but that is interesting! It would be nice to know who was the original audience Rashi had in mind when he wrote his commentary on the Chumash.

Either way, it would be great to have the traditional commentators in Logos format?

George Somsel

That "definition" of midhraash is, of course, the Rabbinical definition, based on their own tradition and usage patterns. The word midhraash has its own unadorned meaning, which is "to investigate, seek, inquire, study". The difference, obviously, is that the unadorned (essentially denotative) meaning seeks to draw out what is already there to be discovered, whereas the Rabbinic (essentially connotative) meaning is, just as you said, to CREATE something "of great value in its own right".

How many times have I heard sermons which were perfectly good in what they advocated, yet taken as an explication of the passage they were supposedly based on were not at all giving the meaning of the text itself. What was said was not wrong; it simply wasn't drawing out the arguments of the text. This isn't a phenomenon restricted to Judaism. It happens all the time.