Psalm 137 - the missing verses

[iain]

OK, not missing, but rarely, if ever, read out in church.

Psalm 137 is the one all Boney M fans know, starting "By the rivers of Bablyon we sat and wept when we remembered Zion."

The last two verses are (in my NIV Bible)

O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is he who repays you for what you have done - he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks

So, God thinks it's not only OK but actually a good thing to take the children of those who have wronged you and dash them against the rocks. Can't think why it mentioned more often - come back radical Islam, all is forgiven.

 

[Iacchus]

OK, not missing, but rarely, if ever, read out in church.

Psalm 137 is the one all Boney M fans know, starting "By the rivers of Bablyon we sat and wept when we remembered Zion."

The last two verses are (in my NIV Bible)
So, God thinks it's not only OK but actually a good thing to take the children of those who have wronged you and dash them against the rocks. Can't think why it mentioned more often - come back radical Islam, all is forgiven.

Apparently they used to think it was a two-way street back in those days. Has more to do with the old Mosaic law, as opposed to the Christian doctrine of forgiveness ...

38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.

41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. ~ Matthew 5:38-42

 

[iain]

Is there any agreement within Christianity about which parts of the Old Testament don't count any more; or is it pretty much a pick-your-own situation?

 

[Iacchus]

I don't know, have you bothered to read the New Testament at all?

 

[espritch]

I don't know, have you bothered to read the New Testament at all?

If he did, would it resolve the problem? Consider the fate of Judas in Acts:

1:16 Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.
1:17 For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.
1:18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
1:19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

OK. So he fell over and burst asunder and all his bowels gushed out. Sounds very Old Testament to me. It is directly contradicted by Matthew:

27:3 Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders,
27:4 Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that.
27:5 And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.
27:6 And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood.
27:7 And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in.
27:8 Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day.

So which is it? Was Judas filled with remorse and hanged himself, or was he defiant to the end and was struck down in a horrible fashion of God himself? How does one pick and choose which parts of the New Testament are true?

 

[iain]

I don't know, have you bothered to read the New Testament at all?

I have read the whole Bible, both cover to cover and just the interesting bits, as well as several books on biblical study though, in honesty, less so in the last few years.

My impression of the New Testament (and I last read it properly when I was at least vaguely Christian) is that people try very hard to make everything fit together to form a coherent whole, but it doesn't really work. For example, the two gospels which have accounts of the events around Jesus's birth seem to me to tell totally different stories. These somehow get merged in the traditional Christmas story but you really have to work very hard to do this - it seems to make much more sense to read them as two different stories.

(This also happens with the Flood story in Genesis where two clearly different and contradictory versions have been spliced together).

 

[RandFan]

I have read the whole Bible, both cover to cover and just the interesting bits, as well as several books on biblical study though, in honesty, less so in the last few years.

My impression of the New Testament (and I last read it properly when I was at least vaguely Christian) is that people try very hard to make everything fit together to form a coherent whole, but it doesn't really work. For example, the two gospels which have accounts of the events around Jesus's birth seem to me to tell totally different stories. These somehow get merged in the traditional Christmas story but you really have to work very hard to do this - it seems to make much more sense to read them as two different stories.

I'm not so sure how "hard" you actually have to work. Faith is great for bluring the lines. When I was a true believer it all fit and made so much sense. Of course there was the nagging little inconsistencies that would surface from time to time. Parayer was good for smoothing those wrinkles. Sometimes though one had a "crisis of faith". In which case it was best to seek out ones spiritual advisor (priest/bishop/minister), pray, fast and read the scriptures. To really understand the scriptures you must have the spirit. Faith would usualy return but the inconsistencies never went away. I guess one learns to ignore the inconsistencies or rationalize them away.

 

[triadboy]

Parayer was good

"Parayer". Now THAT'S southern evangelist talk.

 

[Bearguin]

So which is it? Was Judas filled with remorse and hanged himself, or was he defiant to the end and was struck down in a horrible fashion of God himself? How does one pick and choose which parts of the New Testament are true?

I'll have to find it but I have seen an "explaination" for this.

It was along the lines of him hanging himself off a cliff over the potters field, then the rope broke and he fell, spilling his guts in the field.

I'll have to try and dig it up. It was so absurd I nearly peed myself over it.

 

[Bearguin]

Found it.

http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/qjudasdie.html

"No. Both accounts are true. Apparently Judas first hanged himself. Then, at some point, the rope either broke or loosened so that his body slipped from it and fell to the rocks below and burst open. (Some have suggested that Judas didn't do a very good job of tying the noose.) Neither account alone is complete. Taken together, we have a full picture of what happened to Judas."

What a load of male cow manure. This is exactly the kind of thing (and the Liar, Lunatic, Lord argument) that freaking sets me off.

 

[triadboy]

My impression of the New Testament is that people try very hard to make everything fit together to form a coherent whole, but it doesn't really work. For example, the two gospels which have accounts of the events around Jesus's birth seem to me to tell totally different stories.

The fascinating part is - there were hundreds of different gospels. Gospels for a Markian community, a Thomasian community, for communities that revered Luke, Matthew, John, Mary, etc. No one writing these stories expected them to be bound together in a single book. That was done by the Church Fathers to uncomplicate their world.

(This also happens with the Flood story in Genesis where two clearly different and contradictory versions have been spliced together).

Here you are speaking of one of the greatest writers in history - J (The Jahwist). J wrote the majority of the memorable OT stories, like the second creation story (Adam and Eve), the Tower of Babel, the second Noah story. (J wrote in about 850 BC. One book I read thinks J was a woman in King Solomans court, because of the unique, loving way J treats women.)

During the Babylonian exile (~580 BC) - a priest intertwined his version of the Babylonian creation tale and the "old" Jahwist stories together. (1:1-2:3 is P speaking. 2:4-3:24 is J's creation story (which continues with Cain and Abel))
P couldn't just eliminate these J stories - they were too well known to his people.

(P is also proabably the guy we have to thank for Leviticus, which lays out the priestly "do's and don't" - which also explains why Jews can't eat shrimp.)

 

[RandFan]

"Parayer". Now THAT'S southern evangelist talk.

Sweet Jeazas.

 

[shemp]

Judas was taken up in a spaceship piloted by Elvis.

 

[Iacchus]

I have read the whole Bible, both cover to cover and just the interesting bits, as well as several books on biblical study though, in honesty, less so in the last few years.

My impression of the New Testament (and I last read it properly when I was at least vaguely Christian) is that people try very hard to make everything fit together to form a coherent whole, but it doesn't really work.

Actually, I think the difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament is that the Old Testament represents the establishment of The Law, from out of the wilderness, thus in the external sense or, the letter of, which is unyeilding. While the New Testament represents the fulfillment of that law, in the internal or spiritual sense, which speaks of nothing of but redemption. Afterall what's the point of having a law, if it isn't ultimately designed to save us? This I think is what the New Testament represents, the realization of the intent behind the law.

 

[Ratman_tf]

Afterall what's the point of having a law, if it isn't ultimately designed to save us?

Hm. I can think of a few uses for laws that don't involve saving people...

 

[The idea]

Psalm 137 is the one all Boney M fans know, starting "By the rivers of Bablyon we sat and wept when we remembered Zion."

The last two verses are (in my NIV Bible)
So, God thinks it's not only OK but actually a good thing to take the children of those who have wronged you and dash them against the rocks.

What makes you think God is doing the talking? It sounds like David giving voice to his desire for vengeance.

 

[Silicon]

Idea!

Blasphemy!

All the words in the Bible are the literal sacred directives of GOD!

To speak otherwise... you're one of those LIBERAL christians, aren't you? The ones who say the Bible should be understood within the context of the times, and history!

 

[hgc]

... One book I read thinks J was a woman in King Solomans court, because of the unique, loving way J treats women.)
...

That's Harold Bloom's The Book of J, and it was a couple kings after Solomon, and after the kingdom had split in 2.

Great book. It was a real eye-opener for me about the myriad source materials for "the bible" and the emense time span over which the stories were collected, edited, redacted and so on.

 

[triadboy]

That's Harold Bloom's The Book of J, and it was a couple kings after Solomon, and after the kingdom had split in 2.

Great book. It was a real eye-opener for me about the myriad source materials for "the bible" and the emense time span over which the stories were collected, edited, redacted and so on.

hgc - I know you as a clever poster - so I will imagine you haven't read this book in a while. I just finished it a few months ago. What you said didn't sound right, so I ran upstairs and got the book. I didn't have to look far. Here is a quote from the sleeve!:

Bloom persuasively argues on aesthetic grounds, that J is a writer of the stature of Homer, Shakespeare, and Tolstoy, and on literary and psychological grounds, that J was a woman, very likely a woman of the royal house living at King Soloman's court.

This isn't meant in any mean spirited tone. I've done that before too.


But now you see the significance of it. Remember she was living at the same time as the author of 2 Samuel - who together further developed the character of Yahweh. I like to think they were married and sitting around churning out stories.

 

[hgc]

hgc - I know you as a clever poster - so I will imagine you haven't read this book in a while. I just finished it a few months ago. What you said didn't sound right, so I ran upstairs and got the book. I didn't have to look far. Here is a quote from the sleeve!:

Bloom persuasively argues on aesthetic grounds, that J is a writer of the stature of Homer, Shakespeare, and Tolstoy, and on literary and psychological grounds, that J was a woman, very likely a woman of the royal house living at King Soloman's court.

This isn't meant in any mean spirited tone. I've done that before too.

Hi triadboy,

Thank you for the compliment.

It has indeed been about 10 years since I read it, but I stand by my statement. I have read plenty of inaccurate book jacket blurbs over the years, and I think you've just read one too.

I don't know if I can even find my copy at home, so I'll ask if you might be so kind as to check inside Bloom to find out.

If I remain incorrect, then I owe you a cookie.

But now you see the significance of it. Remember she was living at the same time as the author of 2 Samuel - who together further developed the character of Yahweh. I like to think they were married and sitting around churning out stories.

Yes, or even perhaps illicit lovers. How juicy!

But seriously, this kind of scholarship -- trying to piece together the possible personal lives of long-dead authors based on the historical context and the content of their literary legacy -- is very fascinating. It's like taking a look at how a forgotten individual's personal life affected the creation of the dominant mythological construct of human history.