Ledavid

Argument Map

===
model:
    removeTagsFromText: true
    shortcodes:
      ":C:": {unicode: "🄲"}
      ":G:": {unicode: "🄶"}
      ":A:": {unicode: "🄰"}
      ":I:": {unicode: "🄸"}    
      ":L:": {unicode: "🄻"}
      ":D:": {unicode: "🄳"}    
selection:
    excludeDisconnected: false
===

# Linguistic/Literary Issues

["By David"]: The ל in לדוד indicates authorship: "the following text is written by y" (Jenni 2000:2169 :G:). #author

<Most likely grammatical option>: The use of ל in לדוד to attribute personal possession / authorship (belonging to David = written by David) is the most likely grammatical possibility. #author

(1) [Grammatical possibility]: It is grammatically possible for the ל in לדוד to indicate authorship. #author
(2) [Best explanation]: The ל in לדוד most likely indicates authorship. #author
 -> <Preposition ambiguous>
----
(3) ["By David"]

<Preposition ambiguous>: "Because the meaning of the preposition is ambiguous, it is not possible to identify specific psalms with David as author" (Limburg 1992 :D:) #noauthor
 -> ["By David"]

<Posession - Authorship>: The ל in לדוד is possessive (BDB :L:, DCH :L:), similar to the genitive or construct phrase (HALOT :L:, GKC 129bc :G:, BHRG 25.3.2 :G:). 
And in a possessive/genitive relationship (x of y), where x = text and y = person, y may be the author of x. #author

(1) [ל as possessive]: "In order to express a possessive relationship between nouns which differ in definiteness, a construction with the preposition ל is used instead of the construct phrase" (BHRG 25.3.2; :G: cf. GKC 129bc :G:). #author
  + e.g., 1 Sam. 16:18 בן לישי a son of Jesse… (GKC 129b :G:); אֹהֵב לְדָוִד a friend of David 1K 5:15 עֲבָדִים לְשִׁמְעִי slaves of Shimei 2:39, thus also מִזְמֹר לְאָסָף Ps 75:1 76:1, also מִ׳ לְדָוִד 3:1 (HALOT :L:) #author
(2) [Possession > Authorship]: A possessive relationship, whether a construct chain or a ל prepositional phrase, may indicate authorship. #author {isInMap: true}
 + [With lamed]: מכתב לחזקיהו (Isa. 38:9); תפלה לחבקוק (Hab. 3:1). #author
 + [In construct]: חזון ישעיהו (Isa. 1:1); דברי ירמיהו (Jer. 1:1); דברי עמוס (Amos 1:1); משלי שלמה (Prov. 1:1); ספר משה (Neh. 13:1; 2 Chron. 25:4). #author
 ----
(3) It is grammatically possible for the ל in לדוד to indicate authorship. 
 +> [Grammatical possibility]

<Analogous usage>: ל + personal name is used in song titles in Isa. 38:9 ("of Hezekiah") and Habakkuk 3:1 ("of Habakkuk") to indicate authorship, and these song titles resemble those found in the psalms. #author

(1) The song titles in Isa. 38:9 and Habakkuk 3:1 are similar to those in the book of psalms. #author
 + [Isa 38:9]: מִכְתָּ֖ב לְחִזְקִיָּ֣הוּ מֶֽלֶךְ־יְהוּדָ֑ה בַּחֲלֹת֕וֹ וַיְחִ֖י מֵחָלְיֽוֹ #author
 + [Hab 3:1]: תְּפִלָּ֖ה לַחֲבַקּ֣וּק הַנָּבִ֑יא עַ֖ל שִׁגְיֹנֽוֹת #author
(2) In these titles, the ל + personal name clearly indicates authorship #author
---- 
(3) [Best explanation]

<Semitic parallels>: "The introduction of the author, poet, etc. by this *Lamed auctoris* is the customary idiom also in the other Semitic dialects, especially in Arabic" (GKC 129c :G:). #author
 +> [Grammatical possibility]

<Pss 7:1; 18:1>: In the superscriptions of Psalm 7 and Psalm 18, לדוד is followed by the words, "which he sang/spoke..." The relative clause indicates David as the author. #author
 + [Ps 18:1]: לַמְנַצֵּ֤חַ׀ לְעֶ֥בֶד יְהוָ֗ה לְדָ֫וִ֥ד אֲשֶׁ֤ר דִּבֶּ֨ר׀ לַיהוָ֗ה אֶת־דִּ֭בְרֵי הַשִּׁירָ֣ה הַזֹּ֑את #author
 + [Ps 7:1]: שִׁגָּי֗וֹן לְדָ֫וִ֥ד אֲשֶׁר־שָׁ֥ר לַיהוָ֑ה #author
 +> [Best explanation]

 <Ps 72:20>: Psalm 72:20 refers to the preceding material, mostly לדוד psalms, as "David's prayers" (תְפִלּ֑וֹת דָּ֝וִ֗ד). #author
 +> [Best explanation]

<Historical superscriptions>: "In the headings of Psalms 3; 7; 18; 34; 51; 52; 54; 57; 59; 60; 63; and 142 the connection between לדוד and the description of the situation that follows immediately is so close that it is impossible to construe the ל in לדוד as anything else than the ל auctoris" (Kraus 1988:22 :C:). #author

(1) "The contents of some of the titles, e.g., 3, 7, 18, 30, 34, 51, 52, 54, 56, 57, 59, 60, 63, 142, refer to some event in David’s life,
(2) and here the phrase *ledhavidh* is clearly intended to indicate authorship by David. 
----
(3) If that is the case here, it would seem also to be the case with the other occurrences of the phrase" (Young 1960:314 :I:).
 +> [Best explanation]

## Historical Issues

<Tradition>: David was an author of psalms. #author
 +> [Best explanation] 

[OT tradition]: "In various places of the OT the old tradition persists that David is the author of individual psalms" (Kraus 1988:23 :C:). #author
 + 1 Sam. 16:17ff.; 2 Sam. 1:17ff.; 22:1f; 23:1f.; Amos 6:5 #author
 +> <Tradition>

[Early Jewish tradition]: "The same persuasion regarding Davidic authorship persists in... the early Jewish tradition" (Waltke 1982:10-12 :A:). #author
  + Ben Sirach (c. 190 BC): "In all that he (David) did he gave thanks to the Holy One, the Most High, with ascription of glory; he sang praise with all his heart, and he loved his maker” (Eccl. 47:8-9). #author
  + 11QPs a (c. AD 30 - c. AD 50): "David wrote 3600 psalms." #author
  + Josephus, Antiquities VII (AD 93): "David being freed from wars and dangers, and enjoying for the future a profound peace, composed songs and hymns to God of several sorts of metre." #author
  + Baraitha Baba Bathra (c. AD 450 - c. AD 550): "David wrote the book of Psalms by means of ten Ancients, Adam, the first, Melchisedech, Abraham, Moses, Heman, Iduthun, Asaph and the three sons of Kore." #author
  +> <Tradition>

[NT tradition]: "The same persuasion regarding Davidic authorship persists in... the New Testament" (Waltke 1982:10-12 :A:). #author
 + "The New Testament cites David as the author of Psalms 2, 16, 32, 69, 109, 110" (Waltke 1982:10-12 :A:). #author
   - [Convenational speech]: This is just a conventional way of speaking (e.g., mustard seed as smallest seed); Davidic authorship is never essential to the argument of a NT writer (Goldingay 2006 :C:). #noauthor
    - "The Davidic authorship of 110 is basic and essential to the argument of Jesus himself in Mark 12:36-40" (Grogan 2008 :C:). #author
    - "In Acts 2:25-36 Peter’s argument from Psalm 16, which he links with 110, also depends on Davidic authorship (cf. Acts 13:35-37)" (Grogan 2008 :C:). #author
    - "In Rom 4:6-8 Paul quotes Ps 32:1-2 as from David" (Grogan 2008 :C:). #author
 +> <Tradition>

[Hist. SS's as interpretive additions]: "The Psalm titles do not appear to reflect independent historical tradition but are the result of an exegetical activity which derived its material from within the text itself" (Childs 1971 :A:). #noauthor
  + <Linguistic connections>: "The (historical) superscriptions as a whole contain far more linguistic connections to the narratives (of 1-2 Sam) than appear in the psalms" (Nogalski 2001 :A:). #noauthor 
  - <Orphan psalms>: There are many psalms with no title. If there was a tendency to add titles at a later time, why do we have orphan psalms? (Hengstenberg 3:xxii-xxxi :C:). #author
  - [Unique historical information]: The historical information of some titles is not found in historical books and not readily inferred from the psalm itself (Young 1960 :I:). #author
   + Pss. 7:1; 30:1; 60:1-2 #author
  _> <Historical superscriptions>

<Mismatch>: "At times the situation reflected in Davidic psalms does not match David’s situation described in 1–2 Samuel" (Broyles 1999:33-36 :C:). #noauthor 

(1) "At times the situation reflected in Davidic psalms does not match David’s situation described in 1– 2 Samuel" (Broyles 1999:33-36 :C:).
 +> [Unique historical information]<!--
 + <Ps 59>: "The scope of Psalm 59 is international: God is to “punish all the nations” (v. 5) and the demise of the speaker’s foes will make “known to the ends of the earth that God rules over Jacob” (v. 13). But the citation of 1 Samuel 19:11 contained in the psalm’s superscription merely points to internal political intrigue" (Broyles 1999:33-36). #noauthor
 + <Ps 63>: "The superscription to Psalm 63 points to the period when David was “in the desert of Judah” fleeing from Saul (1 Sam. 23–26). But the speaker’s claim or petition in verse 11 of the psalm that “the king will rejoice in God” seems inappropriate to King Saul" (Broyles 1999:33-36). #noauthor
 + <Ps 51>: "Since the conclusion (of Ps. 51) contains a prayer for rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem (vv. 18-19), the psalm in its present form must come from a time much later than David" (Anderson 2000:17). #noauthor -->
(2) The situation reflected in the Davidic psalms must match David's situation described in the biblical narrative. #noauthor 
----
(3) [Hist. SS's as interpretive additions]

<LXX expansion>: "The additions and deviations in the historical notices of the LXX... show how common it was for the collectors to adopt different traditions, or perhaps to follow mere conjecture (Perowne 1878:102 :C:). #noauthor

(1) The LXX expands the number of superscriptions "of David" and supplies historical settings
 - “Though the divergence in text between LXX and MT may well be greater in the superscriptions than it is in the rest of the Psalter, the discrepancy is not as great as Rahlfs would have us believe” (Pietersma 1980:224 :A:). #author
(2) There is no evidence of an independent historical tradition to the LXX additions (Childs 1971).
----
(3) There was a tendency in the Second Temple Period to connect psalms to events in David's life based on exegesis and not on historical tradition.
----
(4) [Hist. SS's as interpretive additions]

<Authorship>: The ל in לדוד cannot indicate authorship, because David could not be the author of some לדוד psalms.
"If the addition of names in the psalm titles was intended... to imply authorship, then it must be concluded that the editorial addition was not in every case accurate" (Craigie 1983:35 :C:) #noauthor

(1) [Non-Davidic authorship]: David could not be the author of some לדוד psalms. #noauthor
---- 
(2) The ל in לדוד cannot indicate authorship.
 -> ["By David"]

<Temple anachronism>: Because some לדוד psalms make reference to the temple, which did not exist in David's day, David could not have written these psalms. #noauthor

(1) Some לדוד psalms make reference to the temple. #noauthor
 + Pss. 5:8; 11:4; 18:7; 23:6; 27:4; 28; 29:9; 30:1; 36:9; 52:10; 55:15; 65:5; 66:13; 68:30; 69:10; 122; 138:2 #noauthor
 - "The place of worship which in Ps. 27:4 is called בית יהוה and היכל in v. 5 receives the designation סכה and אהל, descriptions which were never applied to the Temple of Solomon" (Young 1960:320 :I:). #author
(2) The temple did not exist in David's day. #author
 - The "house/temple of YHWH" (בית יהוה / היכל יהוה) refers to the institution rather than the building (Gentry). #author
  + Both “house of YHWH” (1 Sam 1:7; 3:15) and “temple” (1 Sam 1:9; 3:3) are used in the narrative of Hannah when there was no temple either (Gentry). #author
 - David's "psalms could well have originated in his personal experience and then have their language updated by him for use in the temple" (Grogan 2008 :C:). #author
  + David, knowing that his son would build a temple, made material and liturgical preparation for its construction. #author
   + 2 Sam. 7; 1 Chron 16-17. #author
  + The cultic language of the psalms could be modified to fit historical circumstances. #author
   + The quotation of Psa 96 in 1 Chron 16 changes מקדש (Ps 96:9) to מקום (1 Chron 16:27) and חצרות (Ps 96:8) to לפניו (1 Chron 16:29). #author
-----
(3) [Non-Davidic authorship]

<Aramaisms>: Because some לדוד psalms have Aramaisms, which David would not have used, David could not have written these psalms. #noauthor

(1) Some לדוד psalms have Aramaisms.
(2) David did not use Aramaisms.
 - The same mixture of Hebrew and Aramaic in Psalm 139, attributed to David, is also displayed in the Panammu and Zenjirli inscriptions of the 9th century BC (see Max Wagner 1966) (Gentry). #author
----
(3) [Non-Davidic authorship]

<2nd and 3rd person references to the king>: Because some לדוד psalms refer to the king in the 3rd person, King David could not have written these psalms (Mowinckel). #noauthor

(1) Some לדוד psalms refer to the king in the 3rd person
 + Pss. 18:51; 20; 21; 61:7-8; 63:12; 72; 110 #noauthor
(2) Authors do not refer to themselves in the third person.
 - "Ancient authors referred to themselves frequently in the third person" (Archer 2007:417 :I:). #author
  + Xenophon often refers to himself in the third person in *The Anabasis* (Archer 207:417 :I:). #author
  + Julius Caesar often refers to himself in the third person in *The Gallic Wars* (Archer 207:417). #author
  + “Illeism—the use of third-person self reference—is a valid and not uncommon form of both syntax and rhetoric” in Biblical Hebrew (Malone 2009 :A:). #author
   + e.g., David refers to himself by name in the third person in 2 Sam. 7:20. #author
    + [2 Sam. 7:20]: וּמַה־יּוֹסִ֥יף דָּוִ֛ד ע֖וֹד לְדַבֵּ֣ר אֵלֶ֑יךָ וְאַתָּ֛ה יָדַ֥עְתָּ אֶֽת־עַבְדְּךָ֖ אֲדֹנָ֥י יְהוִֽה׃ #author
----
(3) King David could not have written these psalms.
 +> [Non-Davidic authorship]


<!--
["For David"]: The ל in לדוד indicates that "the psalms were composed for the use of, and were in due time used by ‘David’ - that is to say, in most cases, by a king of the house of David" (Mowinckel 1967:76, vol 1.)
 + "in the OT 'David' can refer to a subsequent Davidic king or to a coming David" (Goldingay 2006:25-32) #noauthor
  + Jer. 30:9; Ezek. 34:23– 24; 37:24– 25; Hosea 3:5 #noauthor

["Belong to the Davidic Collection"]: The ל in לדוד indicates that the psalm previously belonged to a "Davidic" collection of psalms.

-->

Introduction

This Argument map represents the arguments for and against the hypothesis that לדוד, a phrase found in 73 psalm titles (MT), is an attribution of authorship. In general, the preposition ל "indicates a very general relationship between two entities." In the case of this particular issue, the two entities are (1) a psalm/poem (e.g., מזמור) and (2) a person (i.e., David). These constitute the nucleus or core of a psalm's title. The precise nature of the relationship between these two entities, a relationship indicated by ל, is debated. The ל in לדוד has been interpreted variously to mean "belonging to," "by," "for," "about," "dedicated to," etc.

Scope

The issue of the meaning of ל in לדוד and the issue of Davidic authorship are related but distinct issues. The former is linguistic while the latter is historical. These issues have to be distinguished because it is possible to maintain (as many scholars do) that (1) לדוד refers to (or, at least, came to refer to) Davidic authorship, but that this attribution is not historically reliable, or that (2) לדוד indicates something other than authorship, even though David may well be the author of a number of these Psalms. This argument map is concerned primarily with the linguistic issue of the meaning of ל in לדוד, though, to be sure, arguments concerning this issue become necessarily entangled in the historical issue of authorship.

Goal

The goal of this map is neither to determine the authorship of the לדוד psalms, nor to determine which Psalms have לדוד in their superscription (compare MT, DSS, and LXX), nor to determine when לדוד entered into the text (or paratext?) of various psalms, but to survey the interpretations of ל in the phrase לדוד and to evaluate the arguments involved in order to determine which interpretation is best supported by the evidence.

Conclusion

The phrase לדוד that sits at the core of 73 psalm titles (MT) is an attribution of authorship. To be precise, the ל preposition indicates possession (Jenni: lamed ascriptionis), which, in core of the psalm titles, is a way of designating authorship: “the following text is written by y.” That this is the best interpretation of the phrase is evident from the relative clauses in Pss. 7:1 and 18:1, the historical superscriptions, the editorial note at Ps. 72:20, the analogous usage in Isaiah 38 and Habakkuk 3, and the fact that David was a well-known author of psalms. Most of the objections to this view are based on the historical claim that David could not have written the psalms in question. If this is true, then the designation לדוד is either (1) historically unreliable or (2) it was never intended to indicate authorship. But the arguments most often raised against David's authorship of these psalms (e.g., anachronistic references to the temple) do not hold up to scrutiny, and they are not strong enough to overturn the mass of evidence in favor of authorship.

Translations

The following interpretations of לדוד are represented in the translations.

1. By David (Α', Σ', Targum; so a number of English, French, and Spanish translations)
2. For David (REB)
3. Pertaining to David (LXX according to Pietersma; see his comments on Psalm 3)
4. Belonging to the Davidic collection (LBFC)

Old Greek

Pietersma 1980

The LXX consistently renders לדוד as τῷ Δαυιδ. Possible exceptions are Pss. 16, 25-27, and 36, which have τοῦ Δαυιδ (cf. Ps. 89 τοῦ Μωυσῆ; 145-148: Αγγαιου καὶ Ζαχαριου). But these instances of the genitive are contested, and, according to Pietersma, "the clear equation of לדוד – τῷ Δαυιδ in the rest of the Psalter and very solid support for τῷ Δαυιδ in at least four of the five passages under study, there is no justification for accepting τοῦ Δαυιδ as Old Greek in Psalms xvi, xxv, xxvi, xxvii, and xxxvi. Ps. 151, written from the 1st person perspective of David, is said to be εἰς Δαυιδ ("regarding David", NETS translation by Pietersma) and also "autographical" (NETS translation by Pietersma) (cf. Ps. 71 Εἰς Σαλωμων, vs. 126: τῷ Σαλωμων). Pietersma translates τῷ Δαυιδ as "pertaining to David" and claims that, "in spite of the recognized intimate bond between Dauid and the Psalms, Greek exegetical tradition did not uniformly construe it as a nota auctoris, and neither did the translator himself" (Psalm 3).

Textual note: the LXX differs from the MT with regard to this superscription in 15 psalms, adding τῷ Δαυιδ in 14 of these cases. Yet Pietersma argues, based on an examination of translation technique, that many of these are inner-Greek additions and that "though the divergence in text between LXX and MT may well be greater in the superscriptions than it is in the rest of the Psalter, the discrepancy is not as great as Rahlfs would have us believe."

The Three

Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion render לדוד sometimes in the dative (τῷ Δαυιδ) and sometimes in the genitive (τοῦ Δαυιδ). E.g., first 41 psalms (Greek numbering):

• τῷ Δαυιδ (Pss. 4 [οι Γ]; 7 [Α]; 9 [Θ]; 10 [Θ]; 11 [οι Γ]; 12 [Α Θ]; 17 [Α]; 18 [Α Θ]; 19 [Α Θ]; 21 [Α]; 22 [Α Σ Θ]; 23 [Α Σ]; 38 [Θ]; 40 [Α Σ Θ]
• τοῦ Δαυιδ (Pss. 5 [Α Σ]; 7 [Σ Θ]; 9 [Α Σ]; 10 [Α Σ]; 12 [Σ]; 13 [Α]; 14 [Σ]; 15 [Α Σ]; 16 [Α Σ]; 17 [Σ]; 18 [Σ]; 19 [Σ]; 21 [Σ]; 24 [Α Σ]; 28 [Α]; 29 [Σ]; 30 [Σ]; 31 [Α]; 33 [Α Σ]; 34 [Α Σ]; 37 [Α]; 38 [Α Σ]; 39 [Σ]

τῷ vs τοῦ

Didymus the Blind (quoted in Pietersma 1980)

With regard to the OG, Pietersma says, "though the translator of Psalms consistently rendered לדוד by τῷ Δαυιδ, in the process of textual transmission the latter was frequently changed to τοῦ Δαυιδ, in an apparent effort to clarify Davidic authorship." The quote by Didymus the Blind shows how, by the fourth century, the genitive in distinction from the dative was understood to mean Davidic authorship.

Aramaic Targum to Psalms

The Targum to Psalms renders לדוד in a number of ways. The most common is simply לדוד, but the phrase עַל יַד דָוִד (variations: עַל יְדוֹי דְדָוִד, עַל יְדָא דְדָוִד, עַל יְדֵי דָוִד) is also very common, occurring at least 20 times. This latter translation clearly indicates authorship ("by David"). Other translations include: בְּרוּחַ נְבוּאָה עַל דָוִד (Ps. 14); צְלוֹתָא דְצַלֵי דָוִד אַצְלֵי יְיָ (Ps. 86).

(Textual note: "The manuscript used as 'base text' for David M. Stec’s translation, B17, is largely in agreement with MT Leningrad but differs in three instances: it does not feature David in Pss 122, 131, and 133").

Latin Vulgate (PIH)

David

English

of David (CSB, ESV, KJV, NET, NIV, NLT)
by David (CEV, GNB)
for David (REB)
omitted (NEB)

Spanish

de David (DHH, LBA, NVI, RV)

French

de David (LBLS, LBS, PV)
Psaume appartenant au recueil de David (LBFC)

Secondary Sources

See Zotero for a list of sources (tagged "ledavid"). These sources were consulted, and an attempt has been made to represent their essential arguments in the map.