Saint Augustine and the Psalms

While reading Augustine's "On Christian Teaching" I found one quote particularly applicable to our class discussion on Friday.

"Any unfamiliar [metaphorical signs] which puzzle the reader must be investigated partly through a knowledge of languages, and partly through a knowledge of things." (Augustine, pg 43)

As always, we were discussing interpretations of the psalms, and the issue of involving theology in our interpretation came up. The argument has been made that we should separate theology from religious studies so that we can get a true "outsider's" view of the writings. I would argue that in order to get an accurate interpretation of a religious work, theology must be considered to some extent because otherwise the words used, or as Augustine puts it, the signs used, cannot be truly understood.

Yes, historical and cultural factors are important in interpreting religious works. But it seems to me that understanding the faith of those writing the psalms, as well as that of those who would be reading them, is essential if we intend to figure out how people reacted to them, interpreted them, and so on. In a sense, understanding their faith and core beliefs would help us to get into their heads and better grasp where they are coming from when reading the psalms. Without "investigating" (as Augustine says we must) the faith of early Christians, we are missing pieces to the puzzle, and expecting to come up with an accurate interpretation without all factors being considered is ridiculous.

Chocolat

A few days ago I watched the movie Chocolat, one which everyone should see at least once. (For those of you who haven't, you can read a brief synopsis here.) Johnny Depp plays the part of an Irish gypsy in this movie, a surprisingly small role in the entire film, and the treatment of his character and his fellow gypsies aroused a few thoughts of my own related to our religious studies class. Roux (Johnny Depp's character) says that everywhere they go they are treated as if they are less than human because of their lifestyle. He even goes on to say, "I should probably warn ya you make friends with us, you make enemies with everyone else," illustrating the level of rejection they receive by townsfolk.

What does this have to do with religious studies? A large portion of the book of psalms asks God to protect His followers and destroy the enemies who follow Him. If this was what readers of the psalms really wanted and believed would happen, how would they have reacted to seeing the treatment of gypsies in this movie? Initially the answer seems obvious. The townspeople were church-going, Christian people, and the gypsies were anything but that. Given that they believed what is said in the book of psalms it seems that they would believe the treatment of the gypsies was completely fair. The "Christian-ness" of this comes into question in certain situations that the film addresses. For example, Roux takes a gypsy child into a tavern with him to get her something to drink. They refuse to serve her because she is a gypsy, even though she is only a little child. There are other more drastic examples I won't reference so that I won't ruin the movie for those who haven't seen it, but how could something like giving a "heathen" child something to drink be seen as something God would approve of? It seems unthinkable.

So the question is, then, did people reading the book of psalms really believe that they should be protected while others were punished and destroyed, no matter who that person might be? Or is it possible that there is some other context we are overlooking while reading the psalms which might be less drastic? I am certainly not one to say for sure, but I have to believe as a person having some faith in the human race that there is some other aspect (or aspects) involved in the idea of "protect me and harm them."

Ethics in the Book of Psalms

One of the most basic messages throughout the book of psalms is that those who follow the Lord will be protected and taken care of, and those who oppose God's followers will be punished. A few examples of this idea are:

"Life he asked You - You gave him,
length of days for time without end."...
"Your hand will find out your enemies,
your right hand find out your foes."
-Psalm 21-

"My steadfast God will come to meet me,
God will grant me sight of my foes' defeat."
-Psalm 59-

"Only good to Israel is God,
to the pure of heart."...
"Though my flesh and my heart waste away,
God is my heart's rock and my portion forever.
For, look, those far from You perish,
You demolish all who go whoring from You."
-Psalm 73-

In order to be saved, one must simply trust in God despite whatever hardships they may be going through. As long as people do this, God will not abandon them.

But what of the psalms which speak of God's abandonment? They feel as though they have been abandoned because of the struggles they endure, but in the end they know God is with them and will condemn those who oppose Him.

When it comes down to it, this is the same ethic that Christianity relies upon. While there are many other aspects to Christianity, this is the one belief which gets Christians through both thick and thin. Being a Christian myself, I do believe this is a livable ethic. If you have faith that God will be with you when it really matters, there is nothing to worry about. Yes, there will be hardships, but that does not mean that God has completely forsaken you. Knowing that this is true makes the rest of life more bearable.

Ethics vs. Faith

I've always considered myself an ethical person, but what is "ethics"? One definition dictionary.com provides is "that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions." But what determines "goodness" and "badness"?

For many people, the belief in a higher power and an afterlife are what are at the bottom of ethical beliefs. They act in a way that will allow them to be in the good graces of that higher power. This is clearly illustrated in the book of psalms. A good number of the psalms speak of God protecting those who believe in Him and smiting those who don't. The thing that seems unclear to me is whether this is a display of ethics or a display of spiritual faith.

Clearly, ethics play a part in the book of psalms. However, the reason people reading the psalms feel the need to act in an ethical manner is because of their deep faith in God. Because they have faith that God will protect them as long as they act ethically. So the answer, I think, is not that the psalms are more about ethics or more about spiritual faith, but rather that they are equally about both aspects because both go hand in hand.

Psalm II

The reason we are using the translation of the Book of Psalms by Robert Alter as a textbook is because of its unbiasedness and its attempt to provide a literal translation without theological implications embedded in the language. This particular quality of Alter's translation becomes crystal clear when compared to the same version provided in the Bay Psalm Book. There is a wide difference in word choice between the two translations in that the Bay Psalm Book's version seems much more emotional. The author seems to be very emphatic about what they're saying and uses strong language to illustrate those feelings. Alter's version, however, seems devoid of emotion. This is not to say that the psalm seems to have less meaning, but just that the author does not seem to be as personally involved in the message the psalm is providing.

In a way, I found Alter's translation of Psalm II helpful in interpreting the Bay Psalm Book version. It takes much more effort to understand the Bay Psalm version simply because it is not written in English as we know it today. The reader has to remember that f's are actually s's and that y's are sometimes i's, except when they're not. Some difficulty also lies in understanding the grammatical aspects of this translation as well. For instance, the second line reads "mufe vaine things people do." Even once we change the f in "mufe" to an s, the line is still hard to understand without scrutiny of the rest of the psalm. Once Alter's translation is read, however, it is easier to understand the basic message of the psalm, and we can then move on to figuring out emotions that are conveyed and other complexities involved in the piece.

Moving on from the mechanics of Psalm II, both translations are seem to be emphasizing the importance of worshiping the Lord and being in His grace. Not only that, but it stresses that one must be aware of what the Lord is capable of doing to those not in His favor. This is yet another reason to follow in His way. Alter's translation helps to make the literal meaning of Psalm II clear to readers, but the Bay Psalm Book gives us an insight into the emotions felt by those who initially wrote/read/sang the psalm in 1640. One powerful word choice that sticks out in this version is "heathen" (as opposed to Alter's "nation").

Aske thou of me, and I will give
the Heathen for thy lot:
and of the earth thou fhalt poffeffe
the utmost coafts abroad.

The verse above struck me as both having the greatest difference from Alter's translation and also giving the greatest insight into how colonists in North America might have interpreted the psalm. First, the translation given by Alter:

Ask of me, and I shall give nations as your estate,
and your holdings, the ends of the earth.

This translation sounds like a typical verse from the Christian bible; it states that all a believer needs to do is ask God, and He will provide them with all that they need and could desire. On the other hand, the Bay Psalm version sounds as if God is telling the people that He will give them the "heathens" and all their "lot." Colonists may have interpreted this as saying that all that the "heathens," or Native Americans had, was their God-given right. They may have felt that God meant for them to have the land of this new world, for after all, they were believers, and that was what believers were entitled to.

Thinking Back on the Grizzly Man

Looking back on my last post regarding "The Grizzly Man," I found my self contemplating not only what we talked about in class regarding religion and nature, but also about another way Timothy Treadwell's life could cause us to reflect on religion.

Regardless of what others, like myself, have thought about his endeavors, Treadwell always believed in what he was doing. He had complete and utter faith that the line between man and animal could be crossed, but that no one had had the patience or understanding to do so before. Although it's a stretch, one might compare his unfailing faith to that of early Christians or the early believers in any faith. Many people thought they were crazy - that what they believed was completely out of this world and that they surely must have been a little crazy. But now, hundreds of years later, there are even more people who follow those same beliefs.

I still hold that Timothy Treadwell, while an interesting individual, was a little off in his beliefs as far as a lifestyle goes. But then, who am I to judge? If he had that much faith in what he was doing, there are probably others who believe the same things. Maybe hundreds of years down the road we will be living in the same environment as bears. Whatever the case may be, there is no doubt that his life and death illustrated a level of faith that many people never experience.

The Symbolic Nature of Animals

Certain animals bring certain attributes to mind. A fox makes us think of something swift and clever. A bear might make us think of something strong and powerful. A mosquito? Something small and annoying. In today's culture, many sports teams are named after animals so that fans will (hopefully) have positive attributes in mind when thinking of that team.

It is possible that Native Americans used this same general idea when building mounds in Wisconsin and other parts of the nation. Many effigy mounds were formed in the shape of birds, for example, which commonly represent freedom. Perhaps it had to do with the freedom of souls from their earthly bodies and into a connection with nature. Connecting also with the fact that these mounds were so large that one could only really see what they were from high above, remains buried in something in the shape of a bird could have to do with the souls "flying" above or around those remaining on earth.

The caves of Lascaux also seem to use the attributes animals bring with them in the paintings. Buffaloes, for example, exhibit power and great might. It seems to me, however, that the cave paintings were more likely to have been drawn as a tribute to the power of nature as a whole. They show respect for animals and all that they represent, whereas the Indian mounds seem to be far more spiritual in nature.

The Grizzly Man

I'm going to be completely honest here. I really don't understand what "The Grizzly Man" has to do with religious studies, but then, I guess that's why I'm the student and not the teacher.

As far as this documentary goes, I get that "the grizzly man" is trying to raise awareness about bears, and that he wants people to realize that bears are misunderstood, that we should respect bears. How living with them and trying to become a bear accomplishes this task is beyond me. Why couldn't he have achieved this goal by observing the bears from a distance? By respecting them in their natural habitat?

It seems ironic to me that the same man who was trying to prove that the common conceptions of bears are erroneous actually died by being eaten by one. I don't know about other people, but this is one of very few cases where I've heard that a bear actually consumed an entire person. You hear of attacks and of people dying from bear attacks, but rarely of their ribcage being found after they were eaten. Doesn't a death like that make any progress he made for naught?

Definition of Religion

"A system of symbols which acts to establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic."

This definition of religion seems to imply that religion is nothing more than physical, tangible things allowing people to have intangible beliefs. It states that a system of symbols establishes feelings in men about "a general order of existence." It then goes on to say that these feelings are "clothed with an aura of factuality" which make people think that what they believe is realistic.

While religion does in fact include the use of symbols and tangible things to reinforce and inspire faith, stating that the basis of religion is these symbols seems ridiculous. Why not then call "Packerism" a religion? Particularly as you get closer and closer to Green Bay, there are a large number of symbols which create very powerful, pervasive and long-lasting moods in men, and for some they might even form "conceptions of a general order of existence." And anyone who has met a true Packers fan knows that they are convinced that what they feel for the Packers is based on facts - facts which many people base their moods and motivations on.


True, the example of "Packerism" may be a little extreme and something of a stretch, but I feel that it illustrates that there is a lot more to religion than Clifford Geertz seems to think.