www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Scripture and Patristic Writings Psalmist's 'word'

Dear Mike,

You are right, absolutely!

St Augustine's commentary on the Psalms bears this out as he finds so much prophecy throughout the Book - quite amazingly beautiful!

And we should always read the Bible "in and with" the Church that keeps us within the proper interpretation of it.

I'm sure Wild Goose wholeheartedly concurs!

Alex

If I might further expand on what Michael and Augustine said...

The line is from psalm 119:105 � which is in the third book of psalms � and it is under the letter Nun (N). This means that the psalm itself should be taken in a practical and literal way as compared to a spiritual or moral way. The letter NUN, as a section header, usually indicates the section is related to - virtues (fruits) as NUN signify that which produces fruits. (�You shall know them by their fruits� � meaning by their virtues)

The psalm is an eight line poem. That is: a double quatrain.

Only the first quatrain really concerns us (the first four lines).

Since it is a quatrain � the subject of the first line - will be repeated in the third line. And the subject of the second line - will be repeated in the fourth line.

As pairs� (line 1-2 and then 3 � 4) the subject of the first line of the pair is inert (inactive � to be consider in itself) while in the second line of the pair the subject is not in action.

If I remember correctly� the subjects of each of the four lines of the quatrain is�

The subject of the first line: word
The subject of the second line: decrees
The subject of the third line: word
The subject of the second line: edicts

We see line 1 and 3 have matching subject
We see line 2 and 4 have matching subject.

Note that �edicts� and a �decrees� - are essentially that same thing (a decision of the king as to a law put into effect).

Thus confirming it as the poetic form known as a quatrain.

No doubt originally written in the type of Hebrew called �tanana� which is a semi poetic form which highlights rhythmic vocalization and lends itself to be sung.

The first quatrain of the pair of quatrains (it is a double quatrain) will be inert (the subject considered in itself) in relation to the second quatrain in which the subject will be in action. This �pairing� which weaves itself though the structure of the quatrains � is rather fantastic in its relational aspects (one thing as related to another).

Some psalms are arranged for Liturgical use � to sung, or partly sung and partly spoken - during Temple services. Therefore we will often find �parts� (for the choir, for the priest, for the people) very akin to Orthodox and Catholic responsorial portions of the Liturgy. But not all psalms were sung and some were spoken during services that we not strictly Liturgical - such as when taking a vow. The vow that a Nazarene took is just such a psalm and it has two parts (what the priest speaks and what the would-be Nazarene speak) after which his head is shaved (as a sign of shame and repentance) his hair not to be cut again until the time of his dedication has been fulfilled. Such services are continued today among the catholics churches East and West � such as baptism, wedding, confirmations, etc� where portions of the psalms are spoken.

In as much as this particular psalm appears in the third book of the collection of Psalms � we should not expect to find oracles within it (God himself speaking). The original name of the collection being; �The Oracles of David� - we often find God himself speaking his oracle (the most fascinating of these are dialogs between God the Father and Jesus the Son). These are more prevalent in the first and second books � but can also be found to a less extent in the third book.

The summation in regards to Psalm 119 and the link between �word� and �decrees� tells us that this should primarily be understood in a practical and literal senses of the study of the Torah and the practice of virtues.

Thus we have taken care of its literal meaning (Torah) and moral meaning (practice of virtuous). The length of this psalm and its sections suggests it was either special to a feast day (a long time at Temple) or broken up to be said over several days in the feast week.

There is a clear reference to psalm 18:29 �You, Lord, give light to my lamp, my God brightens (or lights) the darkness around me�. Jerome (knowing the Hebrew well) translates to Latin �enlightens the darkness�� which correctly makes it more of an intellectual enlightenment rather than a physical light on some foot path in the desert. So while 119 speaks of the Torah � psalm 18 � although the same subject � should be taken in a more spiritual or allegorical way.

Combined (119 and 18) we have a picture of a man walking on a very dark night � carrying a lamp/fire/light � which sheds light on the path around his feet. Outside of this light � there is nothing but darkness � but just around his feet he can see the obstacles and so he does not stumble as a man with no lamp would.

We make note here that �lamp� and �light� and �fire� have the same root. �The eye is the lamp of the body� being equal to the figures with �eyes of fire� in Daniel and Revelation. And I can not help but relate this all to a post I did last year explaining the parable of the lamp which should not be placed under a couch but placed on the table to give light to the entire house � which I explained was a parable regarding how the enlightenment of our conscience whole be the light in which we see the world and its event.

Combined � we now have an image of the �word� (voice of God) speaking to us in our conscience � and we should live by that light.

Wild goose is right to say there is a connection with Genesis � but I do note that Genesis is not a historical book but is rather a cosmogony and as such a prophetic book.

It is truly a wonderful thing when the rational approach to scriptures falls in line with tradition. It can be a dangerous thing to go too far one way or the other so as to be divorced.

-ray

Ray,

You are just a bit above my learning curve, but I'm a novice and have found St. Athanasius's Letter to Marcellinus extemely helpful and a definite plus to my spirituality when praying the psalms.

james

30 years of reading, study, research, etc... I love it.

But I tend to make people yawn ... and I know it.

-ray

The yawning is not from boredom, though Ray; it's from tiredness! By the time we get all of what you've written read and digested... we need a little sleep. We ought to work hard over what you give to us here. It is a gift! Thank you very much, wg

Hi Alex,

If Scripture could have controled the Church, it is likely that we would not be having this conversation. Neither may the Church exercise control over Scripture.

Holy Mother Church may be a good, or not so good, steward of Scripture. The Church is servant to the Word/word of God.

Scripture is not under lock and key!!! Deo gloria, wg

Dear Wild Goose,

Certainly, the Church is the steward of Scripture and the Church is under the Word of God.

But the Word of God is surely communicated to us via the Church, the Body of Christ!

The number of New Testament books, for example, was established by the judgement of the Church which is under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Both you and I accept 27 divinely-inspired books of the New Testament.

And when both you and I do that, we are making an act of trust in the Church's judgement. Nowhere in scripture is this number revealed.

In addition, while the Shepherd of Hermas, the Apostolic Constitutions, the First Letter of Clement are excellent texts, both you and I don't accept these books as scripture.

But there was a time when Christians did - and the Church of Ethiopia STILL counts the 8 books of the Apostolic Constitutions as scripture (together with the book of Clement).

Your view is a decidedly Protestant view and that is your business.

If I were a non-believer, I would still protest your Protestantism in scriptural exegesis as being ahistorical and asocial.

What you are suggesting for our scriptural understanding is simply a figment of the reformers' imagination.

The bible did not drop out of heaven.

However, I'm open to your arguments, if you have any left

Alex

Hi Alex,

Many thanks for your response!

That's an interesting comment, as I've not suggested anything of the sort. Neither am I arguing anything of the sort. It seems you bring a prejudice against the imagination of the reformers.

The reformers all started as Catholics in Mother Church. Mother Church birthed them, nurtured them and trained them. Mother Church did a great job doing so, perhaps too good.

The Counter Reformation did not ignore some of their insights (imagination; the Church has always had an imagination of sorts!); neither did Mother Church pronounce them damned to the nether regions for their reforms.

I'm wondering where the prejudice you display comes from.

Above the fray, fray you seem to bring, not I, I should think we still have much to learn from each other. Among Christians of differing Traditions there should be no competition for souls, minds or hearts. God in Christ has sorted, is sorting and will sort that out. We're not sovereign, God is! There is nothing in my statements that can be threatening nor taken as threatening. Ask Holy Spirit for a new and fresh charism, brother! grace and peace, wg

p.s. you won't hear me say, "the Holy Scriptures dropped out of heaven!"

p.p.s. this statement is quite non-sensical: "If I were a non-believer, I would still protest your Protestantism in scriptural exegesis as being ahistorical and asocial." Care to elaborate?

Mark 9:38-40: ""Teacher," said John, "we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us." "Do not stop him," Jesus said. "No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us.""

Dear Wild Goose,

Well, it's just heartening to read that you accept the role of the Church in nurturing, developing and canonizing Scripture!

IF you believed that the bible dropped out of heaven, THEN your position would be ahistorical and asocial.

Since you don't, then . . .

I don't like the positions the reformers took, that's a disagreement on an intellectual/spiritual level rather than a bias.

One could say that since I don't agree with Arianism, Monophysism, Monothelitism, that I am therefore biased against those systems as well (which I am! ).

The reformers affirmed "Sola Scriptura" and that is both ahistorical and nonsensical from the viewpoint of how the scriptural canon and interpretation actually took shape and what the role of the Church was up to the time of the reformers.

As for chaining the bible etc. you are showing your own bias, Friend.

That was nonsensical propaganda by the reformers to get the idea into people's heads that the Church was somehow belittling scripture or else was based on positions that were against scripture.

The argument continues to this day, as I am told . . .

Are you a Protestant yourself? What is your own faith position?

Alex

What is often missed, is that not a single doctrine of the Church changed as a result of the Reformation. Only the disciplines changed. What puzzles me is that people are still "protesting" today. It sure can't be corruption since that'll be with us till the end.

I dare say anyone professing the Catholic faith ought to be prejudiced against protestants. Paul frequently warns of false teachers in his letters. Of course, now a days, the word "prejudice" carries with it a lot of connotations that I don't intend in the way I just used it, so perhaps we should say: anyone professing the Catholic faith ought to be wary of protestants.

The Church is and always has been subject to Scripture as it is subject to sacred Tradition and the proper interpretation of both as handed on by the Magisterium of the Church (give Dei Verbum a read). In other words, it is subject to the totality of Divine Revelation. It is not, however, subject to the private interpretations and innovations of a few who would pick apart the deposit of faith because they dislike certain doctrines and dogmas.

In Him,
Mike

I, personally, have no interest whatsoever in
false religions that do not have valid Apostolic
Succession and valid Sacraments. What the
"protestants" have to say on any subject is of
absolutely no interest to me.

antonius

They have plenty of interesting things to say about a great many interesting topics. Most of these topics fall under categories like "building extremely large and success communities" and "exciting people with fellowship". They have mostly been working on these areas because they lack most of the sacraments and apostolic succession. As such, it might behoove us all to see what they think about *some* things.

right you are, Mikey! as an EC who attended a Baptist seminary, what Protestants have to say about Scripture is worth considering. one should consider before making a cavalier dismissal of Protestant insights that Protestant scholars are not ignorant of the schools of Antioch (historical-grammatical), Alexandria (allegorical) or of the Patristic school (Rome's attempt to reconcile the forementioned schools), nor are they ignorant of the Fathers,or since Protestantism arose in the context of the West, of the post Fathers thinkers such as Thomas Aquinas, Francis of Assisi, etc. in other words, know what you are talking about before posting. thanks, Mike, well done, bro.
Much Love,
Jonn

I never said that Protestants were ignorant
or uneducated in what they say.
I simply said that I, personally, have no
interest in it...........


antonius