Lectionary Psalm
Did anyone else notice that in the Psalm appointed for this week that the lectionary cops have removed part of verse 35?
Here’s what the omitted portion says: “Let sinners be consumed from the earth, and let the wicked be no more.” Psalm 104:35a (now suppressed by the church).
Ok, here’s my rub as a Protestant. Part of our MO is to put the scripture into the hands of the people, to let them wrestle with it and come to grips with it. Yet we take this Psalm, keep all the good stuff about praising God , and cut out this section. Why?
Think Jack Nicholson yelling, “The truth? You can’t handle the truth!”
When we edit the scriptures in order to take out something that a committee somewhere deemed offensive, then we are telling out people that they are unable to handle scripture except as mediated through the cleansing filter of the church.
Guess what?! We are reading the Psalm as written at my church. I, for one, trust my people.
Filed under: church life, preaching, theology, worship
Interestingly enough, Beruruiah, one of the two female sages mentioned in the Talmud interpreted this verse differently, because the word in the Hebrew “sinners” can also be read as “sins”. (I’ve put the quote below.)
I heartily agree with you about the “editing” of scripture that takes place. Let the preacher talk about the problematic aspects if she so desires. But let the congregation wrestle with the actual text!
Babylonian Talmud, tractate Berakhot 10a
Certain brigands who were in the neighborhood of Rabbi Meir used to trouble him greatly. He prayed [lit.: sought mercy] that they die. Beruryah his wife (devethu) said to him, “What is your opinion [i.e., on what do you base your prayer?] Because it is written [Psalms 104:35], ‘Let sins cease…?’ Is ’sinners’ written? [Rather] ’sins’ is written. Furthermore, cast your eyes to the end of the verse, ‘And they are wicked no more.’ Since sins will cease, they will be wicked no more. So pray that they repent and be wicked no more. He prayed for them, and they repented.
http://tzvee.com/beruriah.htm
I’ve wondered the same thing at various times throughout the lectionary.
I’m of several minds on this.
Principally, yes, it’s saying that we don’t trust our congregations. These verses are not deemed “appropriate” for public worship (That was the rationale for leaving a number of psalms out of the LBW’s psalter).
On the other hand, Mass lectionaries have always been more selective because originally they were balanced with the continuous reading of Scripture. Whether this actually happened in the past is upon for discussion but it certainly can’t be taken for granted today.
Of course, given this view, what makes me hoppin’ mad is when the Psalms and Scriptures get edited in the Daily Office lectionary.
Okay, I’m with Derek. When I discovered a couple of weeks ago that the more unpleasant Psalms go missing in LBW, I was shocked. As a certain liturgy professor put it when I asked why, he said, “We moderns can’t handle anything hardnosed or unsettling.”
I think we do our congregations a disservice by not wrestling with hard texts. Which presumes if a difficult text shows up, including a Psalm text, it might be recommended that the preacher deal wit the text in his/her sermon. I say this because some will have read these texts elsewhere and if they’re not placed within a solid theological framework, they can lead to some funky views about God–just look at the American religious landscape.
I think the Psalm is supposed to be a response to the reading that comes before it so maybe the lectionary committee decided that the first part of verse 35 didn’t fit with the theme of what we were responding to.
If we’re talking about what the committee left out, what about the first 23 verses of the psalm? Did you let the people sing/read that as well?
Tom - no, i just object to them cutting out a phrase that they are uncomfortable with that interrupts the natural flow established.
It is difficult to say to what degree this verse would be a distraction on Sunday morning…but here is yet another example of the anti-nomian leanings of the lectionary.
Thanks for pointing it out.
Good on you, LP - that’s something I’ve done before, too. I especially loved the irony of the lectionary cutting verses 18-19 when we’re working through Revelation 22:
“I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will ad to that person the plagues described in this book; if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away that person’s share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.”
Delicious stuff, no? One thing for which I am thankful in regards to ELW is that the book of Psalms is printed in its entirety. That, at least, was a step in the right direction.