St.Augustine

Although dense, I found Augustine's writing to be informative and engaging. Of his many points about knowledge and learning in his second book I thought one of his points that was most inherent to the Psalms was his point about language and research. His point was that in order to complete interpret and understand scripture one needs two know that language that the original text was in and that its necessary to look at other manuscripts and scriptures to get a full understanding of any given passage.(pg 38)

I find this really relevant to our past reading of the psalms for a couple of reasons. First is that Alter who translated our book of psalms must have the most complete understanding of the psalms because he looked at the psalms in there original language. Not only this but he looked at the psalms in terms of there original poetic style. Alter is thus truly aware of what has been lost in translation.

Secondly, if one wants to interpret the psalms properly, I think knowledge of Hebrew tradition and scripture is pivotal because the psalms are full of allusions to history and scripture. If you don't know the allusions, than you are not getting the full meaning out of the psalms.

So, props to St. Augustine for helping us understand the psalms.

Cultural Diffusion

According to Alter's footnotes and our discussion in class psalm 18's description of God is one that borrows heavily on Canaanite tradition. Apparently at one time the Isrealites vanquished the Canaanites from the promise land, and in this time they inherited some of the Canaanites linguistic and religious traditions. This begs the question, what other parts of jewish and now christian tradition are stolen from other cultures? and does it really matter?

Without doing any real research, I do seem to remember that a lot of modern christian tradition is borrowed off of pagan ritual. For instance the specific date of christmas, and the christmas tree. With this in mind it would not be a stretch to assume that a lot of modern religious tradition has been borrowed from one culture or another throughout the years.

The answer to the question of whether this matters or not is a little more difficult to answer. In my opinion it doesn't. For instance, the description of God in psalm 18 is powerful and poetic, and thus I have to give props to the Canaanites. the language helps the reader of the psalm to reach a greater understanding of the power and grace of god that the psalmist was attempting to portray. And turning to the Christian tradition, its not the date or trees that make christmas, its the meaning behind those very human constructs. People are always going to have their own view of religion, and as a result no two people ever worship in the same matter. This being said, what does it matter if some details of a religion are borrowed from another culture, what really matter is the personal spiritual connection that the religion creates.

Unethical Psalms?

It seems strange to call into question the ethics provided by the Psalms that make up a pillar of both christian and jewish holy scripture, but it is an interesting question. What really is the ethical stance of the Psalms? In reading the Psalms I see one main example of the ethics of the psalms. The ethic seems to be that your are acting ethically if you are following the will of god. This stance has a couple of different outcomes, following the will of God can mean violently destroying your enemies or helping the poor. Both happen in the Psalms.

Psalm 41 states, "Happy who looks to the poor, on the day of evil may the lord make him safe." In this quote its evident that its the will of the lord to help the poor, and as a result its an example of strong moral fiber to help the poor. Today, this is still a good ethical move and one that we see echoed strongly in modern christianity.

On the other hand Psalm 18 states, "I pursued my enemies, caught them, turned not back till I wiped them out." The violent language continues throughout the rest of the Psalm, and all violence is carried out with the consent and/or help of God. This seems to state that violence is ok if God is on your side. This ethic lives on today, but modern society and law have certainly tempered the violence. We see today "Holy War" taking place across the globe. Christian Americans still pray for victory against whatever foe the US is fighting, believing that our nation has the God given right to win.

In the end, the Psalms have presented a livable ethic that has lasted for thousands of years. although it may be a livable ethic, its one that personally I would like to see changed because in the course of history people have done terrible things in the name of God. On the other hand, like Psalm 41 would like us to do, a lot of good has been done too.

2nd Psalm

In looking at the translation of the 2nd psalm that the early americans did, and looking at the translation that Robert Alter did there are quite a few differences in word choice. Of these word choices a few really stand out. First among these is the early editions use of the word heathen in the line, "Why rage the Heathen furiously". In Alter's translation the line reads "Why are the nations aroused". At face value this difference in translation seems small, but when taking a look at the time and place at which the early translation was done, the word choice seems very important.

For me, the word heathen in terms of the early translation can only really point to one group, and that's the native americans. In the early reading of the psalms by the americans this word choice would have been relevant to their lives. the people who read this psalm, undoubtedly encountered native americans, and most likely thought of them as heathen. Thus if a psalm said that god would strike down the heathen, it would seem like good justification for the pilgrims to take action against the native americans. Alter, dealing with no such bias, translates the passage to have a meaning much more relevant to the biblical time that the psalm was actually written.

Another word choice that seems to be a tip of the cap to the pilgrims is the line "and of the earth thou shalt possess the utmost coasts abroad." In Alter's translation the line reads I shall give nations as your estate, and as your holdings, the ends of the earth". Once again, the pilgrim translation is made to be relevant to the pilgrims life. They found themselves on a coast abroad, so this reading of the psalm would seem like justification for taking the coast as their own.

In the end, the bible and other holy texts only hold power when they are relevant to ones life, so it makes sense that the first white americans would want to make the 2nd psalm applicable to their lives.

Secular Culture?

Our study of the indian mounds of Wisconsin left me with a rather persistent and nagging question. Did a secular culture exist among the tribes that built the mounds in Wisconsin, or was every aspect of every day life tied up in religion for these people? Although this answer can never be discovered without the aid of a time machine, I think some modern day cultures can shed some light on this question.

I feel like in general hardship breeds religiosity. If one lives under harsh circumstances or finds one's self confronted by a tragedy they tend to turn to the supernatural or religious. In the United States a lot of people live very comfortably, and thus there is a large secular culture. On, the other hand we known that the mound builders built mounds in a time of much cultural change and internal strife, not to mention the fact that they had to work hard to survive in a world without fast food and grocery stores. This would seem to point to a culture very heavily reliant on religion.

Another factor that would seem to point to a lack of secular culture in the mound builders is that ubiquity of the mounds and mound burials. Robert Birmingham the author of the book we were reading points out that at one time there were 20,000 mounds in Wisconsin, with many containing burials. From this he says that it could be that a large proportion of the mound builder population were buried in the mounds. This would mean that the majority of a population were all buried in the same manner, with the same ceremony and spiritual undertaking. This would point to a large scale religious tradition and a highly religious culture among the mound builders.

Now if I only had that time machine to find the real answer.

Effigy Mounds

The state of Wisconsin is apparently covered in native American mounds of all sorts. the most prominent and mysterious of these are the effigy mounds. These mounds are in the shapes of different animals, humans and animal-humans also know in the scientific community as humanils(the term manimal is also widely accepted). These mounds pose some interesting questions about symbology not only with regards to religion but also with regards to secular life.

Effigy mounds are not the only places that we have encountered representations of animals in our religious studies class so far. The Lascaux Cave was covered in paintings of prehistoric animals. How do these representations differ from the effigy mounds of Wisconsin? The difference between the two seems to be the effigy mounds representation of the structure of the universe. They represent different mounds seems to symbolize the different parts of the universe, the upper world and lower world, and the harmony between the two. The Lascaux caves do not seem to show such a structure to be existent in the minds of the painters.

In today's world, animals are used as symbols widely. Possibly most noticeable is the use of animals as mascots. how does this differ from the animal representations of effigy mounds? The most obvious is that it's theorized that effigy mounds were sacred and were important spiritually to the people who built them. Mascots such as the Chicago Bears or the Liverpool Liver Birds do not hold any spiritual meaning to the people who are fans of those teams. Although the Anaheim Angels may be a good exception to that rule.

In the end the importance of these effigy mounds to there builders may never be fully understood, but at the least we must understand that they were an important facet of the spiritual lives of the builders.

Grizzly Man or Animal?

Having spent the majority of my years residing in Alaska, I thought I would try to bring some further insight into the documentary "Grizzly Man" which happens to take place in Alaska. The documentary of follows the story of a man, Timothy Treadwell, who spends his summer living with the bears of Katmai National Park. With only his camera for company Treadwell, attempts to live life as a bear. This includes talking to , touching, and in general idolizing wild grizzly bears.

First, i think its important to establish that not only are Treadwell's actions towards bears crazy, they are extremely disrespectful and harmful to the bears of Katmai. I have seen lots and lots of grizzly bears and have had a couple close encounters with them. They are powerful animals that deserve respect. Treadwell, in trying to show that grizzlies are not the ferocious killers of folklore, makes the bears out to be little more than giant puppies. Of course grizzly bears don't kill humans for sport, but the death of treadwell shows that they are not puppies either. In the end treadwells lack of respect lead to not only his death, but the death of a bear.

Secondly, Treadwell is not alone in his attempts to get back to nature in an extreme way and act crazy. Alaska is an easy place to escape society, and thus it attracts a whole spectrum of weirdos from your armed militia members to your crusty hermits.

Alaska is a place of unbelievable beauty, and its understandable that people like treadwell are drawn to it. For people like treadwell, living in the wilderness seems to be a means to escape society and return to a simpler time. In the end what treadwell's story can teach us is that there is a reason that human culture came to be. Life in the wild is harsh and dangerous, and society now proctects us from that. Of course man still thirsts for simpler times, and a release from the pressures of modern day life. Maybe that's why religion and spirituality are still so prevelent in our society today.

Definition of Religion According to Geertz

Clifford Geertz defines religion in an extremely simplified and secular manner. He basically states that religion is a group of symbols that are put together is such a manner that they appear to give powerful proof of an order of existance.

Although I feel this definition is a rather condisending veiw of a religion, I do agree for the most part with Geertz's definition. I most strongly agree with Geertz's assertion that religion clothes "these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic." This statement simply outlines the fact that religion exists as an institution to provide proof of the unprovable.

A religion must function under an "aura of factuality" or else the religion doesn't have anything to believe in. If christians didn't undenialby believe that christ live, and worship under the aura of factuality that he did live, they would not be christians. An aura of facuality in religion provides the basis for faith. Since faith is a foundamental part of religion, you don't have religion without faith. Thus I agree with Geertz's definition.