**1 Chronicles 25:1-5 makes a point of identifying Asaph, Heman, and Jeduthun as prophets/seers.** This suggests that some of the psalms in Psalms are prophetic, anticipating future events. Several of these psalms are recognized as messianic, but largely because the NT treats them as such. But what about non-messianic psalms? **Has anyone developed a candidate list of (non-messianic) psalms which should be approached as prophetic, anticipating--at the time they were published--events which were yet future?** **Perhaps Psalm 137 is one of these?** It is commonly claimed that this psalm is exilic or even post-exilic, due to the initial reference to Babylon, remembrance of Zion, remembrance of the treatment of their captors, etc.1 Yet 137:5 is concerned that one might forget Jerusalem, which seems to exclude a post-exilic situation, unless the concern is that they might forget Jerusalem's former glory; but that goes beyond what is said. Further, 137:8 indicates that Babylon had not yet been destroyed. In some ways this psalm offers parallels to Isaiah 40-66 (esp. Isa 47) which, on the premise that there was a singular writer of Isaiah, prophetically speaks from a perspective of those already in exile. 1 Examples are Kidner and Belcher: "This psalm needs no title to announce that its provenance was the Babylonian exile." Derek Kidner, *Psalms 73–150: An Introduction and Commentary*, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1975), 495. "Psalm 137 arises out of the experience of the community in exile in Babylon following the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 587 BC. Although the author may be looking back on that experience the memory is fresh and the historical situation is still unsettled." Richard P. Belcher Jr., The Messiah and the Psalms: Preaching Christ from All the Psalms (Ross-shire, Scotland: Mentor, 2006), 76.

If Psalm 110 was NOT written by David, then did Jesus make an error in stating that "David himself calls him [the messiah] 'lord'" in the Psalm (Mark 12:36-37; Mat. 22:43-45; Luke 20:42-44), or is there a better way of looking at this? I've read a few commentaries (expositional and scholarly) on the New Testament passages and Psalm in question (Expositor's Bible Commentary: Carson (Matthew), Wessel and Strauss (Mark), Liefeld and Pao (Luke), VanGemeren (Psalms); Word Biblical Commentary: Evans (Mark), Hagner (Matthew), Nolland (Luke), Allen (Psalms 101-150); and the NET Bible's notes to name a few). At least one of the Expositor's commentators recommended Allen's commentary. I agree that his appears to provide the most thorough analysis of the Psalm's original context of the commentaries I've read and also best addresses the question at hand. While he concludes that the Psalm was most likely written *about* David rather than *by* David (as also the NET concludes), he also writes, > "An understanding of the heading of the psalm in terms of Davidic authorship features twice in argumentation, at Mark 12:35–37 (and parallels) and Acts 2:33. This understanding, already as old in principle as the redactional characterization of the block of Davidic psalms in Pss 3–71 as “the prayers of David son of Jesse” in Ps 72:20, accords with what R. N. Longenecker has called the “circumstantial” or “descriptive” type of interpretation, based on ancient cultural norms, to be found in the NT, as distinct from the normative kind of exegesis practiced today (TynBul 21 36–38; Biblical Exegesis, 193–98)." I've since read some of the recommended book by Longenecker, *Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period*, learning much about Jewish exegetical practices around the 1st century. I also read Dr. Michael Brown's take on Jesus' use of Psalm 110 in his book, *Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Vol.* 3. While he prefers defending the Psalm originally being written about the Messiah, he also concedes, > "Even if the psalm was originally written by a court poet for his lord, King David, it would still point to David’s priestly calling (as a prototype of the Messiah) as well as to his worldwide reign, fulfilled only through David’s greater descendant, King Messiah. This would mean, then, that Jesus was pointing to Jewish interpretation of the day, interpretation that attributed the authorship of this psalm to David, thereby proving that Messiah had to be greater than David, but without making a definitive statement about the authorship of the psalm." This is the best and most direct answer I've found so far. The difficulty now is reconciling the assumption that Jesus was not "making a definitive statement about the authorship of the psalm" with the language that he uses, which appears to be definitive. Matthew's version seems to be most easily reconciled with this approach, since Davidic authorship is merely an assumed part of Jesus' questions to his opponents. Mark and Luke are more difficult, Mark's version reading, "David himself said by the Holy Spirit,... David himself calls him 'Lord'." (I also explored the possibility that *David* could merely be a colloquial designation for the Davidic Psalms, attempting to replace *David* with *the Davidic author* in Jesus' quote. This, however, doesn't seem to work well, since the argument in the gospels revolves around the question of how the messiah could be *David's son*, whenever *David*, the assumed author of the Psalm, calls him 'Lord'.) I also have some deeper questions, which I think are pertinent to how we answer the main question: - Does Jesus himself believe that David wrote the psalm? (It's easier to account for other New Testament writers' use of Jewish tradition, since they aren't themselves *divine*.) If so, how should that inform our Christology? (Which part of His argument is divine and which part is human?) - Is the point Jesus tries to make undermined if his argument is based on a false premise? - If Jesus said that David wrote this Psalm, but it actually wasn't written *by* David, how do we reconcile that with the doctrine of inerrancy?

In my parish (err pastorate) there has recently been some hubbub about the music directors not wanting to do "chant" any more, which I believe they refer to as "anything you can't play with a flourish on a piano". In any event, some of the more traditional minded parishioners (pastoratees?) have uncovered their plot to undermine their own sacred duties and petition the Bishop to get out of singing the antiphons at Mass. What this sounds like, and if you've never heard it before - you're probably not alone, I had never heard this. At the beginning of Mass, the cantor belts out one verse of a psalm and then the opening hymn is played. Then before communion, she belts out another verse. She always uses the same psalm tone with no accompaniment and it always seems very out of place. So I can agree with the music directors, to a point, but I think like Christianity itself, singing the antiphons during Mass isn't something that has been tried and found difficult, it's something that has been done poorly and left for dead by professional liturgists. So can anyone point me to an example of what the antiphons _should_ sound like during Mass and does anyone know what kind of leeway music directors have with them - when is it appropriate to leave them out altogether?

In Acts 1:20 we read: > "For it is written in the Book of Psalms: > > > ‘Let his encampment become desolate, and may no one dwell in it.’ > > And: > > > ‘May another take his office.’" But Psalm 69:26 is actually uses plural: > "Make their camp desolate, with none to dwell in their tents." Psalm 109:8 has singular: > "May his days be few; may another take his office." (All translations can be found from the [USCCB website](https://bible.usccb.org/bible).) So it seems to me that St. Peter is changing the plural of Psalm 69:26 into singular in order to make a point. Then he quotes Psalm 109:8 in order to make a point. He seems to be just picking Psalm texts or changing the plural into singular in order to make a point. This is just confusing. I have been searching commentaries on this but have not been able to found one. This could be because people just take for granted that changing the plural into singular is a natural thing that people can just do. **What is going on in Acts 1:20?**

I'm trying to find Calvin's commentary on Psalm 88 in his original Latin.

I'm a Christian but lately an atheist debates they quoted Psalm 82 as evidence that there are other gods. I have asked Rabbis about this, they don't know what to do about it. The only conclusion is that The Almighty created other gods (yes I know idols are rebuked and not called gods for long, God will never say an idol is a "god", just called idols and abominations). God hasn't created those new gods, as in Isaiah 44: Isaiah 44:8 >Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any. I have been told that only Jahve is God, as in Isaiah 44, however, that was past, now why does it mean in Psalm 82 that God created gods? Psalms 82:1-8 >(A Psalm of Asaph.) >**1** God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods. **2** How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah. **3** Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy. **4** Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked. **5** They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course. **6** I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. **7** But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes. **8** Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations. My question is different because God appears to go against the laws of logic and create other Gods. Thank you. English is not my first language so please be slow with me.

In Weimar's edition of Luther's work, Luther supposedly summarized Psalm 83 as follows: > "God must be recognized and honored by all creatures, whether by grace or, contrary to the will, in damnation." I'm trying to locate that quotation in the original German work.

You will often hear people say things like, "The Psalms cover every human emotion and situation." There's even a John Calvin quote somewhere. And the "covering every emotions" part may be true. But something has bothered me about this type of statement for a while. Now, I certainly could be missing something, but as I have read the Psalms more lately it seems that it only addresses really two types of suffering: **a)** Attacks/false accusations from enemies and **b)** suffering caused by sin/iniquity. Many Psalms feature the general 'cry of the afflicted' but when the reason is given, it seems to always come down to the two forms I mentioned above. Here's a couple examples: - Psalm 103:3 speaks of "healing our diseases" but there is disagreement from commentators whether this is really referring to the "disease" of sin. - Psalm 34:18 "The Lord is near to the broken-hearted" might at first glance be read as anyone who is grieving or suffered a loss. However in Derek Kidner's commentary on the Psalms he asserts that this "broken-heartedness" is referring to those who are broken over their sins. What does this mean for us? Is this a theological lesson that these two forms of suffering are the only ones that matter? What about physical suffering not caused by sin or enemies? What about the death of a loved one? What about an unexpected job loss? It seems possible to read the testimony of the Psalms as teaching us that these things aren't really important.

We read in Psalm 110:4 (KJV): > The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek. Hebrews 6:13-17 gives an explanation on why God swore: > When God made his promise to Abraham, since there was no one greater for him to swear by, he swore by himself, 14 saying, “I will surely bless you and give you many descendants.” 15 And so after waiting patiently, Abraham received what was promised. People swear by someone greater than themselves, and the oath confirms what is said and puts an end to all argument. 17 Because God wanted to make the unchanging nature of his purpose very clear to the heirs of what was promised, he confirmed it with an oath. One is inclined to conclude that God manifested his Human Nature by making an oath in the way human beings did. What is the take of Bible scholars of different denominations, on the subject?

I'm trying to locate an online edition (*archive.org*, etc) of Martin Luther's Commentary on the book of Psalms, specifically the Weimar (WA) edition of Luther's works.

Psalm 139:1-12 are typically understood throughout traditional Christianity as referring, at least in part, to God's omnipresence as well as His omniscience and omnipotence: > To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David. O LORD, thou hast searched me, and known me. Thou knowest my downsitting and mine uprising, thou understandest my thought afar off. Thou compassest my path and my lying down, and art acquainted with all my ways. For there is not a word in my tongue, but, lo, O LORD, thou knowest it altogether. Thou hast beset me behind and before, and laid thine hand upon me. Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it. Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or **whither shall I flee from thy presence?** If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me. If I say, Surely the darkness shall cover me; even the night shall be light about me. Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to thee. And this is echoed elsewhere in the Bible, for example Jeremiah 23:23-24: > Am I a God at hand, saith the LORD, and not a God afar off? Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the LORD. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the LORD. From the LDS "Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual , Chapter 3: God the Father" I have gleaned the following: - “**God is** the only supreme governor and independent being in whom all fullness and perfection dwell; who is omnipotent, **omnipresent**, and omniscient; without beginning of days or end of life; and that in him every good gift and every good principle dwell; and that he is the Father of lights; in him the principle of faith dwells independently, and he is the object in whom the faith of all other rational and accountable beings center for life and salvation” (Joseph Smith, comp., Lectures on Faith, 10). This statement from Joseph Smith, that God is omnipotent, seems to be in accord with traditional Christianity. However, other statements gleaned from this same manual appear to be in opposition. It seems as though there is an understanding of God as possessing flesh and bone and being separate and distinct from two others in the "Godhead" while being united in purpose, attribute, and power: - God is a holy, perfected personage with a body of flesh and bones (see Moses 6:57; 7:35; D&C 130:22; Matthew 5:48). - Each member of the Godhead is physically separate and distinct from the others (see D&C 130:22; Matthew 3:16–17; Acts 7:55–56). - The members of the Godhead are united in Their attributes, power, and purpose (see John 17:20–21; D&C 20:28; 35:2; 2 Nephi 31:21; 3 Nephi 11:27). This additional information about God appears to lead to the statement from Bruce McConkie that God is not omnipresent in person but only in power and influence (same source as above): - “Though each God in the Godhead is a personage, separate and distinct from each of the others, yet they are ‘one God’ … , meaning that they are united as one in the attributes of perfection. For instance, each has the fulness of truth, knowledge, charity, power, justice, judgment, mercy, and faith. Accordingly they all think, act, speak, and are alike in all things; and **yet they are three separate and distinct entities. Each occupies space and is and can be in but one place at one time**, but each has power and influence that is everywhere present” (McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 319). How does LDS define omnipresence and how does that definition reflect or redefine what appears in Psalm 139 as actual presence everywhere, specifically verse 7 where God's face (pânı̂ym/presence) is in view? __________________________________________________________________________________________________ There is this related question but in light of the statements of Smith and McConkie I am unsure that the given answers are applicable here.

From this question , and the comments, I am under the impression that Isaiah 44:6-8 >6 Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God. > >7 And who, as I, shall call, and shall declare it, and set it in order for me, since I appointed the ancient people? and the things that are coming, and shall come, let them shew unto them. > >8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. **Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.** implies to many Christians that an omniscience God knows of no other gods because there are no other gods. >He is the only God ... He also says that He knows of no other God >there is only one God, period, He just said so Psalm 82 seems to indicate otherwise >1 God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; **he judgeth among the gods.** > >2 How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah. > >3 Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy. > >4 Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked. > >5 They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course. > >6 I have said, **Ye are gods;** and all of you are children of the most High. > >7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes. > >8 Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations. This Psalm is quoted/referenced later by Jesus in John 10:33-36 . Other scriptures that seem to indicate multiple gods is 1 Cor 8:5-6 How do non-LDS Christians (the other question was focused on Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints understanding of the Isaiah verse), interpret these scriptures together? Or am I misunderstanding other Christian's interpretation of Isaiah 44?

I was reading Psalm 88 : >**1** Lord, you are the God who saves me; day and night I cry out to you. **2** May my prayer come before you; turn your ear to my cry. **3** I am overwhelmed with troubles and my life draws near to death. **4** I am counted among those who go down to the pit; I am like one without strength. **5** I am set apart with the dead, like the slain who lie in the grave, whom you remember no more, who are cut off from your care. **6** You have put me in the lowest pit, in the darkest depths. **7** Your wrath lies heavily on me; you have overwhelmed me with all your waves. **8** You have taken from me my closest friends and have made me repulsive to them. I am confined and cannot escape; **9** my eyes are dim with grief.I call to you, Lord, every day; I spread out my hands to you. **10** Do you show your wonders to the dead? Do their spirits rise up and praise you? **11** Is your love declared in the grave, your faithfulness in Destruction? **12** Are your wonders known in the place of darkness, or your righteous deeds in the land of oblivion? **13** But I cry to you for help, Lord; in the morning my prayer comes before you. **14** Why, Lord, do you reject me and hide your face from me? **15** From my youth I have suffered and been close to death; I have borne your terrors and am in despair. **16** Your wrath has swept over me; your terrors have destroyed me. **17** All day long they surround me like a flood; they have completely engulfed me. **18** You have taken from me friend and neighbor— darkness is my closest friend. I was left wondering and had conflicting thoughts. Question: **Is the God that this psalm refers to the same God as our Christian God, i.e. Christ's father in heaven?** I am asking because this psalm projects an image of a God that abandons his children and could care less about them being fruitful and having support etc., which is not the "Heavenly Father" image that we have in the New Testament. **Do we Christians read the Old Testament as a historical artifact only, or more than that?**

There is a theory going around that Shakespeare adopted his name from the Bible. Alleged evidence for this claim is that Shakespeare was in King James' service during the preparation of the King James Bible, and was generally considered to be 46 years old in 1611 when the translation was completed. There are a few extant examples of Shakespeare's actual signature, and on at least one occasion he signed it 'Shakspeare', which divides into four vowels and six consonants, thus '46'. The 46th word from the beginning of Psalm 46 is "shake" and the 46th word from the end (omitting the liturgical mark "Selah") is "spear" ("speare" in the original spelling) ( Courtesy: Wikipedia/Psalm 46 ) So,is it true that Shakespeare got his name from Psalm 46 ?

A Lectionary (in the Roman Rite) is composed of the readings and the responsorial Psalm assigned for each Mass of the year (Sundays, weekdays, and special occasions). The Lectionary is arranged in two cycles, one for Sundays and one for weekdays. The Sunday cycle is divided into three years, labeled: A, B, and C. I would like to be be able to, say, be able to quickly determine when the next time a particular psalm, say, Psalm 1, will have excerpts from it read at Mass. I would also like to be able, if possible, to easily determine how many times exceprts from, say, Psalm 1, will be read at Mass over the complete cycle. QUESTION: Is there an expedient way to search the Lectionary in order to find when an excerpt(s) from a particular Psalm will be read at Mass? Is there, perhaps, an online way of doing this without having to resort to a physical day-by-day search of the Lectionary?

In the Psalms David mentions **"unicorns"**. What exactly was unicorns to David's mind?

In [Psalm 39 (NIV)](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2039&version=NIVUK) starting with verse 12, David said: > "Hear my prayer, Lord, listen to my cry for help; do not be deaf to my weeping. I dwell with you as a foreigner, a stranger, as all my ancestors were. So he's asking God to hear his prayer, listen to his cry for help, and to not be deaf to his weeping. Then in verse 13, he says: > Look away from me, that I may enjoy life again before I depart and am no more." What is this supposed to mean? It sounds like he is contradicting himself.

Romans 1:18-25 ESV > 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 **For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them**. 20 **For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse**. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. 24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. Psalm 139:7-10 ESV > 7 **Where shall I go from your Spirit?** **Or where shall I flee from your presence?** 8 If I ascend to heaven, **you are there**! If I make my bed in Sheol, **you are there**! 9 If I take the wings of the morning and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, 10 **even there** your hand shall lead me, and your right hand shall hold me. Paul argues that the universe clearly points to an Almighty Creator, in a way that is clearly perceived by everyone. The psalmist complements this by adding that the presence of God can be perceived anywhere, no matter where one goes. Combining both descriptions, the picture one gets is that the existence and presence of God ought to be undeniably obvious. However, these conclusions are challenged by an increasingly popular argument known as the *Argument from Divine Hiddenness*. The following are handy sources to learn about this argument: - https://iep.utm.edu/divine-hiddenness-argument-against-gods-existence/ - https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/divine-hiddenness/ The argument in question was in fact brought up in a recent [answer](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/106261/66156) to [*Is Romans 1:19-20 philosophically sound?*](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/106259/66156) on Philosophy Stack Exchange: > Aside from a lack of philosophical argument in the verse you posted > (which I’m sure someone else will answer), there is actually a > philosophical debate about how God is *hidden*, rather than being > “clearly perceived”: if God exists, why is he hidden from us? > > Here is a summary from the [IEP > article](https://iep.utm.edu/divine-hiddenness-argument-against-gods-existence/) > for it: > > > these arguments try to demonstrate that, if God existed, He would (or would likely) make the truth of His existence more obvious to > everyone than it is. Since the truth of God’s existence is not as > obvious to everyone as it should be if God existed, proponents of > arguments from divine hiddenness conclude that God must not (or > probably does not) exist. > > As the article explains, the problem rests on the assumption that God > has hidden his existence from us, or at the very least been reluctant > to give evidence that point towards his existence. If there were clear > signs towards his existence, nonbelief would be less prevalent than it > currently is. > > There are some good arguments against the Atheist position (which you > can find in the article), but since there is an ongoing debate about > the hiddenness of God I would say the argument in the verses you > posted doesn’t hold up philosophically. If the existence and presence of God are unmistakably and undeniably evident, how do we explain the traction and impact that the *argument from divine hiddenness* seems to be gaining among atheists? **Note**: Attempts to trivialize the question by answering *"because they are atheists"* are out of scope, because such answers would fail to explain why the individuals in question are atheists in the first place (which should be surprising given the fact that, according to Romans 1:19-20 and Psalm 139:7-10 and similar passages, theism should be undeniably evident to everyone).

>Then stood up Phinehas and executed judgment ... and that was counted to him for **righteousness unto all generations for evermore**. [Psalm 106:30,31 KJV.] > >Phinehas hath turned my wrath away ... wherefore .. I give unto him a covenant of peace and he shall have it **and his seed** after him, the covenant of an **everlasting priesthood**. [Numbers 25:11-13, KJV ] The covenant here expressed regards righteousness and is promised to the seed of Phinehas (not as of many seeds - see Galatians 3:16 - but of one) everlastingly. Now, Elizabeth was of the daughters of Aaron. And Mary, the mother of Jesus, was Elizabeth's close relative (Luke 1:5 and 36) not by marriage but by blood (Luke 1:35-40). Therefore Mary was of the tribe of Levi by birth. Only by marriage was she of the tribe of Judah, not by birth or blood. Nor could **any man** descended (naturally, by any means) from Jeconiah onwards ascend the throne for : >Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for **no man of his seed** shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah. [Jeremiah 22:30, KJV.] The curse on Jeconiah was impossible to overcome, by any natural means or by any devious manipulation of the royal rights. It was finished. Humanity was prevented from ascending the throne, for ever. But then a 'woman compassed a man' and a man married that woman. And that changed everything. Yet that humanity formed within Mary did have a connection ... to Phinehas and to a promise of an everlasting Priesthood. The significance of this seems to have escaped Protestants, as far as I can tell, despite the fact that it is immensely important regarding the matter of justification by faith, the accounting of the righteousness of God to the faith of them that believe in Jesus Christ. My supposition is that Protestants, rejecting the worship of Mary, have nevertheless neglected to consider her contribution and have overlooked the importance of her genealogy 1 in regard to the promises made to Phinehas and inherited by Jesus, through Mary. (Just as promises were made to David, the king, and were inherited by Jesus, through - adoption by - Joseph.) **Is this so, that this has been neglected ?** Or is it the case that some Protestants have noticed the significance of these two highly important passages in Psalm 106 and Numbers 25 and have recognized the significance of what is inherited through Phinehas and Mary, as we see so much inherited through David and Joseph ? And, if so, where is this recognition documented ? ----------------------------- 1 Just for background interest I add the following : With considerable similarity to the tripled repeat of fourteen generations - the royal line - from Abraham to Christ through Judah (see Matthew 1:1-15) it can be shown that there is a tripled repeat of twelve generations (the significant number of covenant) from Aaron to Christ through Phinehas and Mary. [The genealogy in Luke is sometimes claimed to be Mary's genealogy but it is clearly not so by its content. Luke's list is not the *royal line* (the throne often not passing by direct heritage) but is the *natural line* of begetting.] Data in Ezra, Nehemiah and Chronicles gives the following : Twelve generations from Aaron to the days of David: Aaron, Eleazar, Phinehas, Abishua, Bukki, Uzzi, Zerahiah, Meraioth, Amariah, Ahitub, Zadok, Ahimaaz Twelve generations from David to the Babylonian captivity: Ahimaaz, Azariah, Johanna, Azariah, Amariah, Ahitub, Zadok, Shallum, Hilkiah, Azariah, Seraiah, Ezra Twelve generations from Captivity until Christ: Ezra, Jeshua, Joiakim, Eliashib, Joiada, Jonathan, Jaddua, [G8 G9 G10] Mary, Jesus called Christ. G8 is either Levi or Eleazar G9 is either Melchi or Matthan G10 is Joachim G8, G9 and G10 are not recorded in scripture but recorded in Doctrina Jacobi and by Tiberias and by John of Damascus. Any further information on this genealogy would be welcome either publicly or privately.

It seems to me that most Catholic lay people do not focus on the 150 Psalms (found in the Bible) in their daily prayer life. It seems that many focus on pious devotions instead. I have always felt that the Psalms are way more interesting than pious devotions. The Rosary is said to have come from a tradition that did not allow the laity to focus on the 150 Psalms. It seems that many lay people find pius devotions way easier to focus on. It is like they are drawn to it rather than the Psalms. What are some of the reasons why Catholics would feel more drawn to focus on pious devotions than the Psalms?