Learning How to Interpret a Biblical Psalm

A few years ago, I developed the following lesson plan for a unit on the Book of Psalms in the Old Testament course that I teach at Amarillo College. I want to give credit where credit is due: I based my observations and the student exercises on a presentation by Professor David J. A. Clines of the University of Sheffield, in the U.K. Dr. Clines was speaking at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in November 2000. I attended the session and got the following ideas from what he said:

Exercise 1: Describe the relationship between the two halves (or several parts) of these verses in the Book of Psalms. How does the second (and third, fourth) part of the line relate to the first part?

1:1

1:6

24:2

29:1

91:14

119:11

As you have seen, the most basic feature of Hebrew poetry is couplet composition. This feature is more commonly called parallelism because the two or more parts of a psalm verse are in some way parallel to each other. Each verse consists of A and then B (and occasionally C, and even D). In order to understand it, each verse requires the reader to identify how B relates to A.

A second feature of Hebrew poetry is the strophe. What's that? Think of it this way: a strophe is to poetry what a paragraph is to prose. A strophe is a distinct block within poetic material. It's clear that the biblical poets thought and composed in strophes. However, the Hebrew text of the Psalms contains no markers for strophes. So it’s up to us to locate and identify them. What is the point of doing that? It reveals the major sections, the basic structure, and the progression of a psalm.

Exercise 2: Close your Bible. What follows is Psalm 2 in the New International Version translation. However, here the verses come one after the other, with no breaks to identify the strophes. (You may have never noticed it before, but the actual text of the NIV does mark off strophes with a blank line in between them). Now, identify the strophes by marking where you think the main divisions of this psalm occur. Be prepared to explain your “division decisions.”

Psalm 2 (NIV)

1 Why do the nations conspire and the peoples plot in vain?
2 The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers gather together against the LORD and against his Anointed One.
3 "Let us break their chains," they say, "and throw off their fetters."
4 The One enthroned in heaven laughs; the Lord scoffs at them.
5 Then he rebukes them in his anger and terrifies them in his wrath, saying,
6 "I have installed my King on Zion, my holy hill."
7 I will proclaim the decree of the LORD : He said to me, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father.
8 Ask of me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession.
9 You will rule them with an iron scepter; you will dash them to pieces like pottery."
10 Therefore, you kings, be wise; be warned, you rulers of the earth.
11 Serve the LORD with fear and rejoice with trembling.
12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry and you be destroyed in your way, for his wrath can flare up in a moment. Blessed are all who take refuge in him.
 ___________________________________________

What kinds of signals or indicators led you to mark the divisions as you did? Once you have answered that question for each strophe, compare your results with your copy of the Bible. (Most modern translations of the Psalms indicate strophes by a blank line between them).

Now that you have identified the four strophes of Psalm 2, we can theorize about strophe identification:

1. Here are some clues that one strophe has ended and another is beginning:

change of speaker
change of location, setting
change of mood
change of topic

2. Here are some clues that a strophe is concluding:

a line repeats (word-for-word or in ideas) the line that opened the strophe
words like “forever,” “always,” or “death” may suggest an ending
a line summarizes the thought of the strophe as a whole
a refrain (a line that appears at the end of several strophes)

3. Here are some are clues that a new strophe is beginning:

change of addressee
words like “therefore” and “now.”

Exercise 3: Now it’s time to sharpen your ability to visualize what’s happening in a psalm. Imagine that you are a screenplay writer. You have been assigned the task of preparing a script for a short film depicting Psalm 2. For each strophe, you will need to identify things like:

· The location. Where does the action take place?
· Who is present?
· The speaker(s)
· The lighting, atmosphere, colors, mood, camera angles, etc.
· Since you are incredibly talented, go ahead and compose the soundtrack too. Does each scene include a musical score? What does it sound like? What specific recordings would you select for each scene?

Sources for Introducing the Psalms

Today I'm especially grateful for the good service of our active duty military and of our veterans. Many thanks to my father, Frank H. Bellizzi, Jr., who honorably served in the United States Air Force for over twenty-six years.

For what it's worth, today veterans and active duty military eat free at Applebee's.

- - - - - - -

Occasionally, I like to use this blog as a public archive, to store away things that might be useful to me later. It's important for any student to preserve the fruit of his or her study. And if what I'm saving might be useful to you as well, then I sometimes post it here.

Believers have always loved the Book of Psalms. A few statements and quotes that can be used for introducing the Psalms:

In a letter to his friend Marcellinum, the fourth-century bishop Athanasius said,

It is my view that in the words of this book the whole human life, its basic spiritual conduct and as well its occasional movements and thoughts, is comprehended and contained. Nothing to be found in human life is omitted.

In the early sixteenth century, Martin Luther, the great leader of the Protestant Reformation, said that the Psalms

might well be called a little Bible. In it is comprehended most beautifully and briefly everything that is in the entire Bible. It is really a fine . . . handbook.

In his Commentary on the Psalms, John Calvin wrote that in this book

there is nothing wanting which relates to the knowledge of salvation.

In Life Together, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who died at the hands of the Nazis, said that the Book of Psalms

occupies a unique place in the Holy Scriptures. It is God's Word and, with a few exceptions, the prayer of men as well.

Source: James Luther Mays, Psalms (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1994), p. 1

The Psalms continue to live and [to] grip the attention of needy humanity. Fads blossom and wilt, generations come and go, civilizations rise and fall, but the Psalms continue to serve the ages. No other book has been so fondly read and so freely commented on. The inescapable conclusion is—it has something helpful for [people] in every circumstance of life. . . . The Psalms are [a] common heritage, filling common needs. They contain guidance for the errant, power for the weak, courage for the trembling, rest for the weary, cheer for the despondent, hope for the fainthearted and comfort for the afflicted.

Source: Leroy Brownlow, Living with the Psalms (Fort Worth, TX: Brownlow Publishing Company, 1976), no page number.

The Hebrew psalms hold up a mirror to religious experience, to reflect with astonishing fullness and frankness its many moods. Exultation and doubt, pain, persecution and sorrow, passion and aspiration, fortitude, bitterness and despair, complaint, gratitude, and heartfelt praise--all find equally candid expression. The utter sincerity, the wide range, and the deep humanity of the psalms make them the voice of Everyman exploring the religious dimension of life.

The variety of circumstance and occasion covered by the psalms is truly amazing. Sickness and restoration, distress and the fear of death are frequently mentioned. So are the joy in nature and the moral instructiveness of history. Guilt-laden confession prompts some psalms; so do homesickness, nostalgia, and social and religious protest.

Source: R.E.O. White, A Christian Handbook to the Psalms (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1984), p. 4.

Back Again, Leaving Soon, Psalms, Ecclesiastes

Last weekend's visit to Lubbock turned out even better than I expected it would.

For one thing, Kevin Schaffer wound up traveling with me and Ken Danley. Kevin, a former member of Acappella, is the worship minister at the Central Church of Christ. We'd met once or twice before. But the car ride to Lubbock and back gave us the chance to get to know each other better.

Over the weekend I got to talk with, learn from, and worship with the following people: Terry and Charlotte Smith, Jeff Walling, Randy Harris, Mike Cope (who, if you hadn't heard, announced a transition this week), Scot McKnight, Greg Taylor, Brandon Scott Thomas, Randy Gill, Larry Mudd, and Tod Vogt. Rich stuff.

Spring Break is next week for us. I plan to get an early start, flying out to Connecticut later this week to spend some time with my kids.

- - - - - - -

This month, I'll finish out a Sunday-morning class on the Psalms that I've been teaching at Central.

Next month I'll be teaching a four-week, Wednesday-night series on Ecclesiastes at the Colonies Church of Christ here in Amarillo. I'm so looking forward to doing that class. For one thing, I'll have the chance to get better acquainted with the people at that congregation. And, this will also force me to go ahead and finish out some material on Ecclesiastes that I've been trying to put together for a long time now.

As a lot of people have discovered, Ecclesiastes is one of the more-interesting books of the Bible. To their credit, the people who put the Scriptures together decided not to squelch this dissenting opinion.

Getting ready to teach Ecclesiastes, I've thought about working through one of the newer commentaries. I've read the great, older works of Robert Gordis and Graham Ogden.

What newer books (or classics) would you recommend?

Psalm 137: On Bashing Babylonian Babies

I've been teaching from the Book of Psalms on Wednesday nights. What a blessing. But what a challenge, too.

We started out with an introduction and overview. From there, each class session has been devoted to one psalm in particular. Next Wednesday night will be the last time for me to teach the class. I've decided to go with Psalm 137. Here it is from the New International Version:

1 By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept when we remembered Zion.
2 There on the poplars we hung our harps,
3 for there our captors asked us for songs, our tormentors demanded songs of joy; they said, "Sing us one of the songs of Zion!"
4 How can we sing the songs of the LORD while in a foreign land?
5 If I forget you, O Jerusalem, may my right hand forget its skill.
6 May my tongue cling to the roof of my mouth if I do not remember you, if I do not consider Jerusalem my highest joy.
7 Remember, O LORD, what the Edomites did on the day Jerusalem fell. "Tear it down," they cried, "tear it down to its foundations!"
8 O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us-
9 he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.

As you guessed, I wanted to get to this one because of its one of the best known of the so-called imprecatory or cursing psalms. Verses 8 and 9 pronounce a blessing on the one who smashes the little children of the enemy. It's not something most people expect to find in the Bible. Savage vindictiveness can be found in other places in the Scriptures. But it's not often this raw.

Naturally, I plan to take the class back to one of our first observations about the psalms: they aren't like the Ten Commandments or a prophetic oracle. That is, they don't come from God per se. Instead, the psalms are primarily the words of people. It is only because these particular psalms make up a biblical book that people of faith regard them as being part of God's written word to humanity. By their very nature, the psalms tell us about God in a much more roundabout way than something like a prophetic sermon.

From there, I want the class to explore the kinds of experiences that led the poet to feel this way--massacre, looting, destruction, robbing people of their dreams and their well-being. I want to explore questions like, Don't passages like this one speak of the way that we ourselves sometime feel? I want to get into questions like, What are Christian people to do with their own deep anger? Is it appropriate for us to pray our own rage? How do we do that? Or do we just do it, like Psalm 137?

While I'm turning the text over in my mind, I'm interested to hear what you think.

Psalm 1: Two Ways

In the spring of 1945, C. S. Lewis published a little book he called, The Great Divorce. He realized, naturally, that the title would raise a lot of eyebrows. How could anyone talk about a good divorce? And here was a book about a great one?

But Lewis wasn’t speaking of divorce in the usual sense of that word. He wasn't talking about marital divorce. He meant instead the divorce between Heaven and Hell; the real opposition between truth and falsehood; the radical distinction between good and evil. There is a real choice we have to make between the two, he said. And that choice of ours leads us to one of two very different destinies.

Why would he need to write a book about that? Because, explained Lewis, we fallen human beings want to accept a dangerous idea that just isn’t true. We somehow want to believe

that reality never presents us with an absolutely unavoidable ‘either-or’; that, granted skill and patience and (above all) time enough, some way of embracing both alternatives can always be found; that mere development or adjustment or refinement will somehow turn evil into good without our being called on for a final and total rejection of anything we should like to retain (p. 5).

Lewis was rejecting the notion that when it comes to how we live our lives, we can have it both ways. Instead, we must recognize a distinction and choose between right and wrong. In the end, such choices will make the difference between Heaven and Hell.

The Great Divorce was a strong attack against muddled thinking and life with no integrity. But those things haven’t gone away, have they? Sixty years later, people continue to accept the idea of no absolutes. When it comes to matters of faith we’re told that “All roads lead to the same place.” When it comes to morality and ethics, we’re told that you and I might hold convictions that completely contradict each other. But each is perfectly right to retain them as individuals. I can have my truth, and you can have yours. Nobody has to give up anything.

I don't know if it's true or not, but it makes a good story. You've heard it, I guess. A well-known philosopher gave a speech advancing the idea of relativism, no such thing as consistent, unified truth. In the question-and-answer session, he was asked, “Are you certain that you’re right?” to which he said, “Absolutely.” But no discrediting or embarrassment of such thinking will make it go away. People will keep believing and saying that, when it comes to how we live, we can have our cake and eat it too. Why? Because, deep down, that’s what we would like.

Into our world, sick with sin, enters the very first Psalm. It announces that there are only two ways; that those two ways are diametrically opposed; that they run in completely opposite directions:

Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of the scornful. But his delight is in the law of the Lord; and in his law he meditates day and night. And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that brings forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he does shall prosper.

The ungodly are not so: but are like the chaff which the wind drives away. Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous.
For the Lord knows the way of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly shall perish (KJV, retouched by FVB).

Two ways, says the writer. Many centuries later, Jesus himself would affirm this view:

Enter by the narrow gate: for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few (Matthew 7:13-14, RSV).

Two ways. Paul said the same thing:

Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. For he who sows to his flesh will from the flesh reap corruption; but he who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life (Galatians 6:7-8).

Two ways.

The Old and the New: Brevard Childs and Barack Obama

I've enjoyed my year of focusing on mostly older books, "older" meaning the book had to be published before 1968.

Many of my books for this year were written in the early part of the 1900s, not especially old, but earlier than the arbitrary line. It all began with a recommendation from C. S. Lewis, advice I've tried to follow in 2008.

I've cheated a few times. A couple of recent memoirs, a couple of recent novels, etc. But for the most part, it's been older books. For the record, Lewis didn't object to new books. He just thought a good number of old books, real classics, should be a part of anyone's diet.

One of my reads this year doesn't qualify technically, but in another way it does. It's Old Testament Books for Pastor and Teacher by my former professor, the late Brevard S. Childs. Published in 1977, this one is almost entirely about OT scholarship that pre-dates 1968.

Anyway, as I walked through Childs' evaluations of the Old Testament Introductions, his comments on the various OT commentaries, etc., I was again struck by his real appreciation for scholarship from every era of the church. Most biblical scholars and students of our time favor a monopoly of the modern. If it isn't recent, it can't be the best. If it's older, then it might be of interest to the historian, but it has no value for the scholar or preacher.

If anyone had an excuse for entirely focusing on the work and results of modern biblical criticism, it was Childs. He was trained as a biblical scholar in Germany during the the mid-1900s. But to his credit--and this is a major part of his immense influence--Childs saw both the weaknesses of the modern critical approach and the strengths of biblical scholarship as it was practiced before the Enlightenment. Here are a few of his observations about commentaries on the Book of Psalms, classic Childs:

The opinion is widely held that the historical critical approach to the Bible has rendered works on the Psalter prior to the late nineteenth century largely invalid, and that therefore one needs to begin with a critical introduction that sets out the method afforded by modern form criticism before listing the modern critical commentaries. I do not share this opinion. In my judgement, it has resulted in a disastrous reduction for theology, liturgy, and preaching. Rather, I would argue that each period--of course including the modern critical period--has made its peculiar contribution, and that these differing expositions all need to be critically assessed. The real issue is between good and bad interpretation, both of which have been represented throughout the history of the church (p. 60).

Later, along the same lines, he writes,

Probably the gravest indictment against the historical critical method is that it has effectively blocked all access to the richness of pre-critical interpretation of the Bible, both Jewish and Christian. To some extent the church's liturgical use of the Old Testament Psalms has been able to survive the impact of critical exegesis. In my judgment, it is absolutely imperative for the serious and theologically robust use of the Psalms once again to regain this lost heritage. Obviously traditional forms cannot be simply repristinated in the post-critical age, but neither can the great giants of the past be simply ignored without serious impoverishment of the Christian church (62).

- - - - - - -

I'm not very old. But I'm old enough to remember a time not so long ago when it would have been unimaginable for anyone but a white man to be elected President of the United States.

I drove to work Wednesday morning, by myself, in silence. Why silence? I wasn't being spiritual. The radio in my 1992 Ford Crown Victoria doesn't work anymore. Unlike most folks, I don't get to drive with an electronic distractor. I've thought about getting the radio fixed. But most days, I like to imagine that I'm better for having to sit there with myself. Anyway, as I drove along in silence, impressed with my humility, I couldn't help thinking that I was living at a real turning point. I did not support the candidacy of Barack Obama. But now that he has been elected President of the United States, I'm proud to have seen the day when this could and did happen. And I pledge myself to pray for President Obama and to be supportive of his administration.

The great William Faulkner considered brutal racism to be the great sin of the United States, one that would for a long, long time haunt our national life. He evidently believed that the U.S., especially the South, would remain under a lingering curse. The past is not in the past, he said. It is not yet present. The sins of the fathers would be visited upon subsequent generations, a common theme of his fiction.

No, not all of what Faulkner saw has been put to rest. Far from it. But Tuesday was a historic day. This is the beginning of a different time in the U.S., I think. Do you think so too?

No "Soul" in the Psalms?

"He restoreth my soul" --King James Version

"My life He brings back" -- translation by Robert Alter

In Alter's new translation of the Book of Psalms, he avoids using the word "soul." Referring to the King James wording in Psalm 63:1--"my soul thirsteth for thee"--he explains:

The King James Version, and most modern translations in its footsteps, has the "soul" thirsting for God, but this is almost certainly a mistake. The Hebrew word nefesh means "life breath" and, by extension, "life" or "essential being." But by metonymy, it is also a term for the throat (the passage through which the breath travels) or, sometimes, for the neck. (pp. xxvii-xxviii).

A few pages after that, Alter says more about how he understands the word nefesh and why he translates it as he does:

Nefesh, as I observed above, has a core meaning of "life-breath," but the Vulgate generally rendered it as anima, and that in turn predisposed the King James translators to represent it as "soul." It covers so many different meanings that it is impossible to translate in all contexts with the same English equivalent, something I attempt to do with all the Hebrew terms that will allow it. The possessive "my nefesh" is often chiefly an intensive form of the first-person-singular pronoun and, given the lack of any analogous term in English, is usually rendered here simply as "I." When nefesh is the object of a verb such as "to save," the reasonable English translation is "life." Because it is the very breath that quickens a person with life, it sometimes carries the sense of "essential being," and in these cases it is usually rendered here as "being." I am aware that "my being" is more awkward than "my soul," but "soul" strongly suggests a body-soul split--with implications of an afterlife--that is alien to the Hebrew Bible and to Psalms in particular. (There are indications of a Hades-like underworld, Sheol, a shadowy realm of nonbeing into which the dead descend, but this remains far from the distinct afterworld of later Judaism and Christianity.) As such, "soul" is a word that has to be avoided if we are not to get a misleading idea of what the psalmists are saying. (pp. xxxii-xxxiii).

A few reactions, observations:

1. You don't have to read Hebrew to get a taste for what Alter is talking about. English-only readers can take a Young's Analytical Concordance and look up the word "soul." Then, looking at the Old Testament occurrences, read some of the passages where the original Hebrew word is nefesh. See if, in all of those instances, the words "breath" or "life" or, occasionally, "throat" or "neck" would make sense. I know, a possible substitute word does not establish the meaning of a word in the original. It's just that, without Hebrew, this is the best way to get a feel for the question of what nefesh means.

2. It's interesting how students of Hebrew can learn that their vocabulary word nefesh means something like "life" or "breath" etc., but then, when translating one of the biblical psalms, revert to the word "soul." I point this out as an example of how not even study of the original languages of the Bible will move us away from our cherished understandings of certain passages. In spite of the many references to what the Bible says "in the original," traditional English translations of the biblical text carry much more weight. Does anyone do more Bible teaching than a Bible translator?

3. In addition to what Alter observes about the flexibility of the term nefesh, and the necessity of using more than one English word to translate it throughout the Old Testament, in some verses I wonder if there is any English word that adequately communicates what nefesh does. Of course, if you're publishing a translation, then even at those "iffy" places, a decision has to be made.

Alter on the Psalter

It's Friday afternoon. Michele and I are home from the hospital, and she's sleeping off the anesthesia from this morning. (See previous post for details).

So while I sat in the waiting room, I read the "Introduction" to Robert Alter's new translation and commentary on The Book of Psalms. A couple months ago, I did a post about some of Alter's previous work, and some of the buzz about this latest book. You can read my earlier post here.

I've been toying with the idea of writing a review of Alter's latest. Just thinking about possible titles makes me smile. Alas, someone beat me to the punch on "Altering the Psalms" (the title that showed up in the journal "First Things"). Alter doesn't think terms like "sin" and "salvation" and "soul" belong in a translation of the Psalms. For reasons I might eventually talk about, he prefers Alter-natives like "crime" and "rescue" and "life." So what do you think about this title? "No Sin, No Soul, Nor Salvation in the Psalter: What Demon Hath Possessed Poor Robert Alter?" I know, too many words, and just a little on the sappy side. Darn. Anyway, here are some of the highlights from the "Introduction":

Alter starts out with "Historical Contexts" of the Book of Psalms. So many millions of people around the world and across the ages have read and cherished the Book of Psalms. It has become their book, our book. So it might be easy to forget that the Psalms are "intricately rooted in an ancient Near Eastern world that goes back to the late Bronze Age (1600-1200 BCE) and that in certain respects is quite alien to modern people."

What was so different about that world? For one thing, just as modern Christians aren't the only ones who write religious music, the ancient Israelites weren't the only people who wrote psalms. Egyptians, Canaanites, and people living in Mesopotamia wrote psalm-like "cultic hymns and celebrations of the gods." Many of the biblical psalms are later than, and are sometimes quite similar to, their international counterparts.

These kinds of observations aren't new. And it doesn't seem that Alter intends them to be unsettling. However, I do know that sometimes believers assume that since the Bible is supposed to be unique among the books of the world, the writers couldn't have gotten their ideas from anywhere but heaven. (Such believers, I've noticed, also struggle with the idea that although he was more than a man, Jesus was a man). Often, when people read non-biblical literature that comes from the biblical period, they are surprised to find out how similar the Bible was to other books of the time. But a little further reflection suggests that we really shouldn't be surprised. After all, almost everywhere he went God-in-the-flesh walked. (I know, one time he did his walking on water. But the point is, Jesus didn't get around by hovering).

Regarding specific dates Alter thinks that "a few of the psalms might be as early as the Solomonic court, or even the pre-monarchic period. Many of these poems appear to have been written at some indeterminate point during the four centuries of the First Commonwealth (approximately 996 to 586 BCE). Many others offer evidence in their themes and language of composition in the period of the Return to Zion (that is, after 457 BCE)." This seems pretty standard.

One thing I especially liked about this first part of the "Introduction": Alter weighs in, and judiciously I think, on (1) the supposed cultic background to most of the psalms, and also on (2) the approach called Form Criticism.

Regarding the "cultic" (i.e., ritual worship) approach to the psalms often associated with the name Sigmund Mowinckel, Alter acknowledges that some of the psalms "were composed for use in the temple cult." (Again, he means worship at the temple). But, he adds: "What should be resisted is the inclination of many scholars, beginning in the early twentieth century, to turn as many psalms as possible into the liturgy of conjectured temple rites--to recover what in biblical studies is called the 'life-setting' of the psalms." I agree.

And when it comes to Form Criticism, most often associated with the name Hermann Gunkel, Alter insists that we must recognize its limited usefulness. This is the approach "that identifies distinct genres of psalms (supplication, thanksgiving, Wisdom psalm, royal psalm, historical psalm, Zion psalm, psalm of praise). Though these generic categories are sometimes useful for understanding the thrust of a particular text , there is more fluidity of genre than they allow, with many psalms being hybrids or switching genre in mid-course and at least a few psalms, such as Psalm 137, standing outside the system of genre." Once again, I think this is a fair critique, and well said.

Maybe I'll write more about the "Introduction" another time. But now I'm curious: Do you have a favorite psalm? Which ones have meant the most to you? Why?

The Book of Psalms: An Alter-native Translation

How many times does a book in the biblical-studies category get a review in publications as different, and unlikely, as The New Yorker and The Jerusalem Post?

That's exactly what's happened in the case of Robert Alter's new translation of the Book of Psalms.

People who are into Bible study and who know the name Robert Alter probably met him through one of his most-popular books, The Art of Biblical Narrative. In it, the UC Berkeley literature professor shows that Old Testament narratives are not the result of clumsy cut-and-paste. Instead, lengthy sections of the Bible reveal a beautiful artistry, a sound to which modern, academic study of the Bible is practically tone deaf.

Since he wrote that book, Alter has produced translations and commentaries on the Five Books of Moses and the Book of Samuel. And now he's turned to the Psalms.

"Real" Bible scholars are forever pouncing on Alter for not knowing what they know. They don't seem to appreciate that he identifies aspects of the biblical text that, for all of their deep study, they've missed. I've heard that some people have questioned why a theological skeptic like Alter should be teaching the Scriptures. I just take his work for what it is: brilliant analysis of the Bible, and a fresh attempt to bring into English the most important words in the world.

About my pledge: I know, Alter's translation is new. And his commentary is new. And in 2008, I'm supposed to be reading books that are old. But the Book of Psalms is very, very old. So, this counts as one of the "old" books I'll be reading in 2008. Can't wait.

Oh, and you can read Alter's short article, "Psalm Springs: How I Translated the Bible's Most Poetic Book" here. To hear Alter reading his translation of Psalm 19, click on the link at this page.

Shoes and the Psalms

It's been a while since my last post. That's mainly because I've been doing a lot of non-blog writing of late. I know, some of you were thinking the delay was all about the Redbirds losing out to the Astros. Actually, following a good cry, I had intended to say my congratulations to Houston and that I was pulling for the National League Champions. But before I could get the words out, the Astros promptly lost the first three games of the World Series! Baseball: the perfect blend of sport and the Book of Ecclesiastes. "Time and chance happen to them all."

- - - - - - - -

When I was in my late teens and early twenties--say, 1978 to 1984--if contemporary music was like plankton, then I was like a very large aquatic animal. It was during those years that I happened upon a group that in my book qualifies to win the "Best Band that Never Hit it Big" Award. In fact, I just invented that award and proudly present it to, . . . drum roll, please . . . Shoes.

That's right, Shoes. Four guys from Zion, Illinois. You've probably never heard them, or of them. But they were good.

Their "Boomerang" album, released by Elektra Records in 1982, wasn't their first. But it was my introduction to the band, and I've loved that collection ever since. With some tunes, like one called "Mayday," the sound is a nice blend of classic rock and then-popular New Wave (think, The Cars). Other songs, like "The Summer Rain" I would describe as melodic with a moderate beat (think, Bryan Adams).

I don't understand the popular music industry, then or now, so I'm not sure why Shoes didn't make it big (assuming they really wanted to). But I can guess. Very few of their songs have that sure-hit sound, although several of them could with just a little tweaking. The music is plenty good, but the recordings come across as spare and understated, begging to be a little fuller and brassier. But then, why critique a group that just received an award?

So tell me, who would you nominate for "Best Band that Never Hit it Big"? Who's your favorite no-name act? Oh, and you can listen to Shoes here.

- - - - - - -

For me, life doesn't get any better than reading from the Psalms and singing traditional hymns that repeat their words and reflect their meaning. In our worship time last Sunday night, we read and sang the following:

Psalm 100

"All People That on Earth Do Dwell"

Psalm 148

"Hallelujah, Praise Jehovah"

Psalm 23

"The Lord's My Shepherd"

Psalm 133

"How Sweet, How Heavenly" (We held hands while singing this one)

I'd be interested to hear about the churchly experiences of others, especially well-planned times of worship and praise.