Diogenes the Cynic

yes and yes. There is no opacity about it.
No, not correct, it explicitly address future kings of Israel and does so in the plural ("Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth") in verse 10.
Not correct, no. You should try actually reading the Psalm before you spout off about it. reading a little Jewish commentary wouldn't hurt either.

Here is the literal reading of the Masoretic text:
Then you discredit yourself completely. You can't comment intelligently on a text you admit you haven't read.
The text is explicit, as I showed you, and you need to tamp it down a little bit with the belligerence.
Um, yeah. the author TELLS us what he thinks. He thought there was once a Davidic dynasty. That's not a radical thing to say. The fact he believed mythology, not history, does not make any difference to authorial intent.
You certainly are, but you could try reading some Jewish commentary on this Psalm to edify yourself.

Diogenes the Cynic

The myth still survives today.

There was never historically any unified Kingdom of David and Solomon. If david existed, he was a minor warlord and local chieftain, nothing more. There's no evidence at all for any Solomon, and there was definitely no Solomonic kingdom.

sotto voce

Ah. So which descendant of David do people imagine is king? Jesus? That would make sense of 'the Son of God', and the psalm, wouldn't it. Purely in the imagination, of course.

Diogenes the Cynic

All of them. Any of them. It refers to the Davidic line in the abstract. Any direct patrilinear descendant of David is a Messiah, by definition. Of course, this bloodline may or may not actually exist, but that doesn't mean the author didn't believe in it.
Not qualified. Not a patrilinear descendant of David. Also fulfilled none of the criteria.
Not a lick, not only because it would be impossible, but because absolutely nothing in the Psalm has the slightest application to Jesus. The Psalmist is talking, in the abstract, about the Davidic dynasty and Davidic kings collectively. Jesus was no king and didn't meet a single criterion for the Messiah except maybe for being Jewish.

mountainman

Capitilization - the perfect excuse for capital punishment.






How often would the same, or an equivalent, honorific title be used by other kings and warlords in antiquity?

Diogenes the Cynic

It was ubiquitous. You don't even have to look any further than Rome.

Doug Shaver

Sometimes it means something, sometimes it means nothing.

When it means something, the particular meaning depends on the who's doing the writing. It's all about conventions, and different people follow different conventions.

Iskander

Hobbes use of capital letters would derive a different theology.


http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/3207/pg3207.txt

Leviathan, by Thomas Hobbes


“CHAPTER I. OF SENSE


Concerning the Thoughts of man, I will consider them first Singly, and
afterwards in Trayne, or dependance upon one another. Singly, they
are every one a Representation or Apparence, of some quality, or other
Accident of a body without us; which is commonly called an Object. Which
Object worketh on the Eyes, Eares, and other parts of mans body; and by
diversity of working, produceth diversity of Apparences.

The Originall of them all, is that which we call Sense; (For there is
no conception in a mans mind, which hath not at first, totally, or by
parts, been begotten upon the organs of Sense.) The rest are derived
from that originall.

To know the naturall cause of Sense, is not very necessary to the
business now in hand; and I have els-where written of the same at large.
Nevertheless, to fill each part of my present method, I will briefly
deliver the same in this place.

The cause of Sense, is the Externall Body, or Object, which presseth the
organ proper to each Sense, either immediatly, as in the Tast and Touch;
or mediately, as in Seeing, Hearing, and Smelling: which pressure, by
the mediation of Nerves, and other strings, and membranes of the body,
continued inwards to the Brain, and Heart, causeth there a resistance,
or counter-pressure, or endeavour of the heart,”

sotto voce

This thread is not about capitalisation, in any language. Please do not hijack it.

Iskander

What is it about?