Interpretation and the Psalms

Book 2 of On Christian Teaching focuses strongly on how the holy scriptures should go about being interpreted. One of the points I found to be extremely important, especially considering all of the analogies that exist in the holy texts, is that, "Ignorance of things makes figurative expressions unclear..."(44) St. Augustine goes on to describe how knowing the qualities of the snake would enable a reader of the scriptures to make connections between them and the message trying to be portrayed. For example, when suggested by the Lord that man be as wise as snakes, it may seem like a strange comment. However, when considering that the snake sheds it's skin, a new conclusion can be made, that the Lord intended for humans to do away with old ways of thinking and believe in the current.

This concept can obviously be tied in with the interpreting of the Psalms. The many analogies and metaphors that exist in the text including things such as rocks, shields, the sea-god, fortresses, etc. which would have no meaning if the significance of each item was not known to the reader, provide insight into the intended message of the Psalm writer. For instance we know that a shield is used to block harmful objects, in the way that God is said to protect the just from the unjust. This concept is overall extremely important if one wishes to be able to understand the content to the fullest extent.

The Psalms as a symbol

I liked the comment made in class on wednesday about how the psalms separated people of the time into two categories...the us, being the people of Israel and the them, being everyone else and those who had no faith in God. One of the reasons that I liked this was because it tied right in with Geertz's definition of religion, in my opinion. Separating people into us and them, or right and wrong is exactly what Geertz meant when he was talking about religion creating a reality that seemed uniquely true. Furthermore, to complete Geertz's definition and its relationship to the psalms it is important to note how they are themselves a type of symbol that works to establish powerful and pervasive moods and motivations. 

In the psalms there are many lines which seem to try and establish:

• a fear of God: "Your hand will find out your enemies...make them like a fiery kiln."(21)
• a love of God: "You put joy in my heart...for you, Lord, alone, do set me down safely."(4)
• show how merciful God is: "Have mercy on me Lord, for I am wretched...rescue me for the sake of your kindness."(6)
• how powerful he is: "Acclaim strength to God, over Israel is His pride and his strength in the skies."(68)
• and how he can be a source of comfort and security: "The rescue of the just is from the Lord, their stronghold in time of distress."(37)

These lines contain some of the symbols that fulfill Geertz's definition of religion; creating the moods and motivations, establishing how the universe was created, how it is watched over, and what will happen to those who believe in the "truth" and those who don't. The psalm that I used for showing how powerful God is stuck out because of the direct reference to Israel as being God's preference, therefore establishing that the us was the people of Israel and the them, those who weren't. It's almost a kind of nationalism, but I know Mr. Smith  doesn't like to use that word in this context and so instead it was a way of expressing the pride they had for their nation.

Ethics in the Psalms

I don't think that there actually is any ethical way to act in the eyes of the psalm writers, only a necessary way. And that necessary way is to believe in God and obey his commandments, or otherwise face a painful death and trip to sheol. What I find especially interesting is that given two people who have sinned, the one who believes in God is forgiven because while the other one is condemned to a painful death. The reason for this, or excuse I call it, is that the psalm writer admits humans can perform "Unwitting sins" (19) which basically creates a shield around the perpetrator in their eyes.

When it comes to true ethics, however, the closest thing I could find was in psalm 37, which is virtually a list of how the wicked act and how the just act. The basic message of this psalm is not to be jealous of those who are more prosperous than you because in the end they will suffer and you will own the earth. What I find interesting here is that the writer assumes that the prosperous man must also be wicked:

"Do not be incensed by him who prospers,

by the man who devises schemes."(37)

Another part of the psalm states:

The wicked man burrows and will not pay,

but the just gives free of charge."(37)

This is a pretty clear message stating that if you wish to gain God's favor, you should be charitable to others.

In the end, all of these bits of information are intended not for the purpose of preventing against enemies (those who prosper) or helping others (through charity) but so that "He will grant your heart's desire."(37)

I think this is a live-able ethic, and in fact I'm living right now-I'm not killing people and I help people out-, but I'm not doing it for the same reasons as the psalms writers did, that of obtaining desires from a God.

This is comparable to Judaism and Christianity in the sense that this advice is also given in the form of the ten commandments and in the well known saying, "Love thy Neighbor." God also plays the domineering role in many forms of Judaism and Christianity, so in that way it also applies. The main components that I feel are missing though would have to be more details, because it seems as though throughout the psalms it is assumed how one should act in the eyes of God.

The Lyre and the Psalms

On class Friday, I tried to make a connection between the lyre and the psalms, but I don't think I made my argument very clear therefore I want to explain it a little here. One connection that can be made between the two is that the lyre was sometimes used orchestrally when reciting the psalms. However, this doesn't explain why the lyre is used on the cover and shows up in every psalm of the book. Another connection that can be made, and more significant I think, is looking at the psalms themselves as a lyre. In the handout that we received, it stated that David played the lyre for Saul upon request:

"Whenever the evil from God came upon Saul, David took the lyre and played it with his hand, and Saul would be relieved and feel better, and the evil spirit would depart from him."

It was the lyre that soothed Saul, not David, although he was the one playing it. The same thing applies to the psalms, for it was the psalm and not the writer that soothed the reader. The psalms actually served and serve the same function, that of soothing, as the lyre. The reason I say this is because of the quote and some information from the introduction and class discussions. David only had to play the lyre when Saul needed it, just as the psalms were read by people of the past when they comfort in times of hardship.  In fact, many of the psalms were written in reaction to current of events such as wars, which we talked about in class, and were requested from professional psalm writers, in much the same way as David was summoned to play the lyre. 

I think that the passage we read in class may have more significance to the books structure than we may have given credit to it and I hope that I have clarified further what I was trying to say in class.

Psalm 2

Both the translation found in the Bay Psalm Book and the Alter Book of Psalms of psalm #2 work to establish where God's favor lies and that those who follow him are superior to those who don't. However, there are clear differences between the two, including word choice and the time periods in which both translations were made which greatly impacts their purpose.

The Book of Psalms by Robert Alter is supposed to be an accurate translation of the original text written in hebrew. The Bay Book of Psalms translation, published in Massachusetts when expansion to the west was still occurring is also supposed to be an accurate translation, but connections between its version and the events taking place at the time are to important to ignore. 

Some differences between our translation and the Bay translation include:

• Nations-Heathens
• Aroused-Rage furiously
• Fetters-Bands
• Ends of the Earth-Coasts abroad

I believe this translation is another example of how early American sentiment was molded to perceive the Native Americans as savages, in order to make their extinction seem justified. A puritan upon reading this would  see himself/herself as superior to the Natives and probably would see their being killed as a punishment by God for not being loyal. This is actually very similar to the idea of the Lost Race for the Indian mounds because they served the same purpose. Just as we now have no need for that lost race theory, we have no need for the old translation of the psalms, and so we now have Alter's updated version. I believe it is just another work that creates "perceptions of convenience" as I called them in class once.

Reflection on Indian Mounds

On friday when our class talked about what we thought about "Indian Mounds," a lot of people brought up the point that before having read the book, they didn't understand what was so special about the them. They were just pathetic little hills, almost indistinguishable from the surrounding environment. After having read the book, however, I think just about everyone could appreciate their significance in the history of North America. 

I believe that there are some things that can provoke emotional responses just by being. For example, the redwood forests in northern California are among the most beautiful things I have ever seen, and didn't need any explanation to appreciate them. On the other hand, Indian mounds could easily be missed if you didn't know anything about them. However, when you know the history of the mounds, which goes back thousands of years, they cease to be pathetic little hills. Now, whenever I see or hear of these mounds I'll think not only of a little bump on the terrain but of the culture and people that created them and of the practical and religious importance that they had to these people and would have for their descendants.

This book has also helped to refine my perception of Native American culture in the present and past because it followed the history of the Native Americans as a whole in Wisconsin, focusing on things other than the effigy mounds. Overall, I think that this was an educating and interesting book.

Effigy Mounds and Lascaux

The effigy mounds erected between 700 A.D and 1200 A.D placed the world into two categories, that of the upper-world and lower-world. The upper-world consisted of the Thunderbird, the most powerful spirit in this realm, the hawk and other avian species. The lower-world of water consisted of water spirits, often represented as a water panther, who ruled  the lower realm, and then the bear who ruled the terrestrial division of the lower world. Two interesting aspects of these mounds, their locations and way they conform to the land, suggest that they were built to preserve harmony in nature and way of life of Native Americans. 

Considering that many rituals and ceremonies relied on these mounds for significance it is likely that they represented a "general order of existence" much in the same way as religious texts like the Bible and Koran do for today. 

The way that animal representations were used, in my opinion, in mississippian culture is similar to the way we use animal figures for sports teams today. Upper-world beings such as the hawk and peregrine falcon were associated with  power and strength, and subsequently were used in the adornment of warriors as can be noted in cave paintings. Today, animals with characteristics of strength and agility, such as bears and  wolves can be found commonly in sports team names because they represent traits that are desired in the activity.

When it comes to the Lascaux caves, I think the most important difference between it and the effigy mounds is the realism of the animal paintings which lack the obvious mythical aspect of the mounds. This may be an indicator of a less than religious aspect of the Lascaux cave paintings. However the two are the same in that they both represent what was of significance to the two groups and nature also played a large role in the formation of both works.

Tredwell...a bad guy?

In class on Friday was the second time seeing "Grizzly Man" for me, and both times I loved it. As we were having our class discussion someone pointed that he might have been living with the grizzlies for selfish reasons, and I could not disagree, only because I believe everything that anyone does voluntarily is for selfish reasons. However, when people said that he was causing more harm than good I had to disagree (in my head, because I didn't bring anything up in class). I consider what Tredwell did to be an extraordinary and out of the ordinary conservation effort. When I think about modern conservation efforts I think about the national and state parks that cost millions to maintain. But why? Because otherwise society would spread and take over these areas. This is the right way to control the effects of human behavior, but not a very good way of helping the cause. In Tredwell's case, he targets the perception that humans have of nature, which I believe is the harmful part.

It seems to be a trend that as human society moves forward it distances iteself from nature, and as a result desensitizes us to the importance and beauty of nature.  The cave paintings in Lascaux show the reverence that humans felt for nature at one point, while today nature is viewed more as an obstacle and a nuisance. Tredwell tries to bring us closer to where we were before in the that way we perceive nature. I believe that the message Tredwell is sending to society through his adventures serves a reminder that we are giving up something in this world that is more valuable than any amount of money. 

It may be hard to see the benefits of Tredwell's work upfront, but considering that he devoted a lot of his time to educating young kids, and without pay, we may have to attribute advances in conservation in the future partly to him. 

Comment on Geertz definition of Religion

In my own words-

Religion is a belief system that inflicts a viral and stringent lifestyle on mankind by making it seem as though its outlook on existence could not be flawed and that it is the sole bearer of the truth.

After reading this and the original definition several times, I admit that they are harsh and blunt definitions of religion. However, I also must say that many religions have this aspect about them. Whether or not what they are preaching be true or not, they leave almost no room for interpretation without becoming another religion or sect as in the case of Catholicism and it's Protestant cousins. Also, very noticeable today is the Islamic influence that exists in Saudi Arabia and it's effect on women of the region. Women who do not adhere to Geertz's, "moods and motivations", that are expected to be possessed by all citizens of Saudi Arabia, are punished severely. In this case, the lifestyle is not unique to one household or city, but has spread, over time, to every part of the region; Geertz would call this the pervasive aspect of religion.

Personally, I am, for lack of a better term, an atheist. I was brought up Jewish and I still celebrate many Jewish holidays with my family, such as Passover which is coming up very soon. The point I wanted to bring up here was on Geertz's point of the belief that any religion has of it's validity. Whenever I have conversations with friends of mine I bring up points in reality that contradict what clearly is stated in the bible. Instead of admitting that the bible may be incorrect, what usually happens is a stretching of the bibles words to fit with my argument. For example, instead of admitting that scientific data proves that the world could not have been created in seven days, those seven days become indiscernible lengths of time, allowing for the bibles text to fit with scientific findings. 

I guess one of the main things that Geertz and I share is a frustration with the tendency of many religions to close their doors to any alternative ways of thinking about the world.