I assume you've now read through the Psalms of Solomon.
Question number 1: What group/event do you think is the background for this text? The Greek Syrians like Antiochus Epiphanes? The Wicked Priest Jonathan Maccabeus? The Roman take over of Jerusaelm in 63BC? The destruction of Jerusalem in AD70?
Post at least a 100 word answer below. Remember that you need to respond to the main posts of two other students as well. P.S. I won't be offended if any of you want to speculate about whether the author of this text was a Sadducee, Pharisee, or Essene...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
42 comments:
I would say that the second paragraph give a clear description of the Roman's invading the city of Jerusalem. It talks about the defilement of the Temple and this could be linked to the act of defilement done by Pompey when he entered the Temple. At the end of the chapter we see the psalmist give a warning about repaying the sinner with punishment worthy of their sins. This could be related to Pompey's untimely death of assassination by his supposed friends. One could argue that the psalmist had him in mind when he penned these comments in the Psalms of Solomon.
When it mentions the "sons of Jerusalem seemed to commit evil acts/defiling the holy things, perhaps it is referring to those who converted to the evil ways of Antiochus Epiphanes. One is known as being a "proud dragon." This individual seemed to exalt himself above God. This person that the passages describe, seem to be none other than Antiochus Epiphanes himself. In one of the latter chapters, it seems as though there is a longing for the Davidic kingdom to be restored. There is a great disturbance seeing an "alien." There was a "worldly" monarchy that was set up, whose king was not of the race of the Jews. This still sounds like Antiochus. Which ever sect this writer was from, he looks as though he waits for the coming of the Messiah. is mentions the "sons of Jerusalem seemed to commit evil acts/defiling the holy things, perhaps it is referring to those who converted to the evil ways of Antiochus Epiphanes. One is known as being a "proud dragon." This individual seemed to exalt himself above God. This person that the passages describe, seem to be none other than Antiochus Epiphanes himself.
COMMENT (1 of 2) to teamdime29
Now, I feel like a loser. I wasn't very familar about the Roman invasion, but it seems you are! Makes perfect sense, and you did good job of recalling passages from the text to indicate what you mean. I didn't know that Pompey was possibly assasinated by his friends! What kind of friends! Well, he wasn't a nice guy anyways, from what I recall. I'm still confused about the title "Psalms of Solomon." Why was it called that? Thanks for your observations, you catching on to this Intertestament literature stuff more than I am!!
I think that this could be talking about the Wicked Priest/ Jonathan Maccabees. It seems to me that the group opposed by the author are Jews, because the fourth psalm talks about hypocrites who sit in the council of the pious, but secretly commit terrible sins. These secret sins are a recurring theme throughout the book. Both the first and eighth psalms say that they commit worse sins than heathens. Also, the second psalm talks about the sons of Jerusalem defiling the holy things of the Lord. The emphasis throughout the book on defilement and the lesser emphasis on purity suggest that the author could be Essene, which would support the idea that he is opposing Jonathan Maccabees. Also, the author refers to the head of his opposition as the insolent one, which would certainly describe someone who took the office of high priest without having the right to do so.
It seems that the enemies that Solomon refers to may have more power than the Israelites and that they are seen as sinners and unholy. This could possibly be the Romans becasue they most definitely had them out numbered and were not seen as righteous, especially in the eyes of the jews. Solomon leaves us with a sense of anger towards the enemy by repeating the idea of God pouring out his wrath upon them.
comment 1/2 to elijah
i guess i never really thought about the Antiochus Epiphanes. it's obviously possible since these texts are so clear and precise??? but i still think the roman invasion might make a little more sense, but who knows?
great points and thinking!
comment 2/2 to teamdime29
wow!!!
i guessed the romans too just from some general thoughts, but you pulled out some things i definitely didn't even think of (pompey himself) this makes tons of sense now. i can see how the psalmist could've actually been refering to Pompey defiling the temple.
great job and thanks for pointing that stuff out!!!
Based on the reading I would conclude that it would be after the destruction of Jerusalem. I gathered this based on the last two chapters which are about the Lord being the King and the anointed of the Lord. The author in these last two chapters seems to be reminding the Jews that they must stay obedient even through this time of destruction. It also in a way sounds like an encouragement because the author reminds the readers of the past and how God blessed them because they were faithful. I believe another part to support this belief is that in the second chapter it talks about how the temple was defiled (thanks TeamDime29, I thought that was good insight). The reader is reminding the people what happened and how they must move on now that the destruction has happened.
teamdine29
I thought your insight was great and I even used it in my own post. I think you are right one, and I believe what you said at the end about the psalmist having this in mind because that is what I wrote about.
ch
Although I don't agree with you completely I thought you came up with a good possibility. I could see where you could get that idea.
when reading I can't help wonder if the backround is when the Romans invaded the city of Jerusalem, becuase it talks all about Jerusalem. It mentions how they are mocked, and later in the second paragraph line 19, it says "For the nations reproached Jerusalem, trampling it down; Her beauty was dragged down from the throne of glory". Reading that I can't help but think of the Romans.
Josh. that is a very good point. You are super duper
Elijah. I am glad that you saw you mistake, even though you brought up a great point with the evil ways of Antichus Epephanes. I think that you are on the right track.
I want to say that it has to do with the Roman take over. What leads me to believe this is mostly the language that is used. Words like assailed that mean attack or military attack and how the author mentions war. He also mentions, "When the sinner waxed proud" which made me think of Pompey. As he goes on seems to really drive the in the point about the wickedness of those in Jerusalem. a result of what was going on and justifies their being punished. That points out those who fell into sin as the event took place. He mentions the righteous and makes the point that even the righteous have broken the law at one point or have sinned at some point so God is still just in punishing them.
I like what teamdime29 had to say. I totally agree with your take on the first question.
With the extensive amount of talk about Jerusalem I have concluded this must be about either the Roman takeover of Jerusalem in 63 BC or the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD. I am lead more toward the destruction of Jerusalem because there seems to be a lot of talk about a fall. The real issue here is about unrighteousness and it being met with justice. I could find certain phrases that would make me think any of these options. However,despite my clear understanding of the text I think the best option is the destruction of Jerusalem.
to teamdime29
That was a great insight about Pompey. I did not think about that at all but it all makes sense.
to todd
I did not catch on to the last two chapters being about the king and how they need to continue to be obedient in order to be blessed.
To me this does sound like the arrival of Pompey and his entrance into the temple in 63 B.C. If it were the desecration of the pre-Roman time the author might have been more specific. Yet, the offense to the temple after Jerusalem falls is due to the trampling proudly of “the sandals” on its sacred altar. Furthermore, it seems that a siege or forced takeover of the city occurs. Did a siege or forced takeover precede the abomination during the reign of Antiochus? I’m not sure, but I don’t think so.
In the end this seems most likely to be referring to the Roman invasion. If I had to guess I would say that the author is Essene or Essene influenced because of the reference to all of this being caused by the people of Jerusalem “defiling the holy things of God” by unclean practices.
response 1/2 to Candida-
I can't imagine that this is about the destruction of Jersualem...
I would think that the language would be far more stark and mournful and possibly mentioning Jerusalem as rubble, ruins, desolate, or something else to that effect.
comment 2/2 to elijah
I like how you speculate about those who became hellenized being the "sons of JErusalem...defiling" This sheds interesting light on the hypothesis that the event takes place in the setting of Antiochus's time.
To me personally, this writing seems to be referring to the Roman takeover of Jerusalem, so probably somewhere around 63 BC. I was specifically reminded of some of the passages from the eighth chapter, where the author talks about the sound of war coming toward Jerusalem, and how he talks about ‘them’ plundering the sanctuary of the Lord. The author also writes of how they “trod on the altar of the Lord.”
I also found it very interesting how the author talks about “the lawless one, who laid waist to our land.” I thought that maybe this is referring to Pompey and the Romans, but I am not an expert, and if fact I know almost nothing. So in the end, these were some of the primary passages that I drew from when trying to understand the background to this passage.
In Response to Glenn…
It seems to me, after reading the Psalms of Solomon, that you are probably right on the money. I especially like your remark about “the trampling of Sandals on the Holy Altar.” This seems to be a helpful indication as to when the text’s background may be. I also liked your comment about the author possibly being Essene. This is not something that I am totally sure of, but you definitely seem to be on something. Great Work!
Everybody appears to think that the key event in the author's mind is the Roman invasion of Jerusalem. You're probably right, but I'll go ahead and say what I was thinking when I read the book.
My thinking was that the author was an Essene and that he was inspired by the "wicked priest" incident. I thought that the "wicked man" of chapter 12 may have been a reference to the wicked priest. I also thought that the emphasis on God blessing the righteous and punishing the wicked went along with the idea of the Teacher of Righteousness trying to correct the Wicked Priest. I also thought that the "holy people" of 17:28 may have referred to the Essenes.
Anyway, I’m probably completely wrong, but I thought I’d share what stood out to my when I was reading.
In Response to Teamdime29…
I like how you were able to hone in on the second paragraph of the Psalms of Solomon to give you evidence as to when the background of the writing took place. I agree that the passage about the defilement of the Temple is probably linked to Pompey entering into the temple. I believe that you are probably right about your assumptions, and I appreciate your insights/comments.
I believe that the event being
described here is the Romans invading Jerusalem. It makes a brief mention of how the "nations are trampling down Jerusalem." Rome was such a large and powerful nation that it may have been referred to as "nations." Also ascending the altar proudly makes one think of Pompey entering the "holy of holies" and the
arrogance he must have had in believing he had conquered another god. In addition, it mentions the writer wanting "the pride of the dragon into dishonour." I may be wrong, but I believe there are interpretations of the nation of Rome in Revelations as the dragon too.
david bell comment 1/2
Great points David, I always knew great minds thought alike!
john_h comment 2/2
Nice points John. I did not think about that at all. I had suspected while I read this that it may be an Essene writing. Also your point about the teacher of righteousness correcting the wicked priest seems to make sense. It makes for an interesting viewpoint.
In all honesty I knew very little going into this text I felt, but coming out I feel as though it was the Romans taking over or the invasion. Solomon refers to some type of enemies here as he writes that are more powerful than the Isralites and these people might possibly be the Romans. It really could be any, but after reading my gut and a little bit of thought tells me to think that it is the Romans.
I believe that the background for this text and what the author has in his mind at the time is the Roman takeover of Jerusalem in 63BC. It can be clearly seen that this text does not come from after the time of the destruction of Jerusalem because it simply states that the temple was defiled, not destroyed. Also in the second paragraph it states, "God showed me the insolent one Slain on the mountains of Egypt", which alludes to the type of death which Pompey experienced (also seen in Josephus' account of Pompey). In 17:12 is says that "they" will be sent to the west, indicating that the person who came to conquer came from the west. This also points a finger directly at Pompey. - Jason
Ian-You make good points about the language and the punishment of the righteous and unrighteous. I had also noticed the theme of punishment, but didn't put that together.
John-I also thought that the text seemed to be referring to the Wicked Priest, but I hadn't noticed that it talked about a wicked man and a holy people. Good observations.
The event that this guys seems to be best describing is that of Pompey and his takeover of Jerusalem. The strongest defense for this case seems to be psalm 2 which is a clear description of the life of Pompey. Where he came form the west, conquered the city, desecrated the temple by stepping into the holy of holies, and finally his travels down to Egypt where he was murdered on the beach and left to die. jonathan
Elijah: I noticed that there are a lot of similarities between the two events so it does make a little sense. Although the events that are described have strong connections to Pompey and would be considered vague when compared to annals of Josephus.-jonathan
Ch: those arguments do seem to say so, but the historical data that we were taught does not necessarily describe Jonathan when it talks of his death. Jonathan went out to die unarmed and Pompey was assassinated.- jonathan
The messiah seems to follow Sadducee who await their chance at the political high point that he shall give to them, the pure and ideal ones. The contributers to this theology were not exactly pacifists but seemed to be more inclined to wait for the particular time when they can move forward to the climax of history. This emphasis for a coming messiah compares to that time when the writers were forced to step down from their point of leadership. The continual reading of the messiah also produces a description of the messiah as being a son of David who without sing will reign over the new age as a man and not a supernatural being.
todd
Your assurtion that the writer was reflecting on the destruction of Jerusalem leaves with a couple of questions. If that is the case, why does the writer give us a picture of a defiled temple, but not one that has been destroyed? Likewise, why do the Psalms give a portrait of the life of Pompey, when (if it is after the destruction of Jerusalem)it should give us one of Titus?
- Jason
(check your quote from teamdime29; he is talking about an invasion, not a destruction)
teamdime29 & ian fancher
I agree with the content that you two have brought out from the text and what seems to be its context. What the two of you have said appears to be able to summarize the context and the history as a whole. My hat is off to you two!
- Jason
After reading the texts and trying to figure this out i have to come to the conclusion that i think it is the Romans. I say this because i know that from previous readings that the Romans would have out numbered them and were not seen as righteousness to most people, especially the Jewish People. But Solomon does leave us with a sense of God's wrath that will be poured out.
To John H...
I like what you had to say. I think that even though you thought you were wrong you stated your position, and at the same time made some great points.
Good work D. Bell i like what you had to say
Response to everybody:
A lot of excellent observations. I'd have to agree that the second chapter clearly describes the Romans' invasion of Jerusalem in AD 70.
Post a Comment