Talk:Faddan More Psalter

Psalm numbering
Why does Psalm 83 in the Latin manuscript correspond to the modern day Psalm 84? --70.18.248.120 23:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The Protestant numbering system and the Catholic one differ by one through much of the Psalter. Perhaps that's what the writer is referring to...Miraculouschaos 23:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Right. See Psalms. The Hebrew numbering is the most common today (universal among Protestants and spreading to Catholics), but the Vulgate was numbered with the Greek numbering. --Geoffrey 23:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd figure those Christians living 1,200 years ago were also Catholics, and thus were using the same numbering Catholics use today. 24.168.57.47 04:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Neither Protestant nor Catholic, Irish Christians of 1,200 years ago belonged to the Celtic church which differed from other Christians on such matters as the date of Easter, tonsure for monks, etc. I don't know how they would have numbered the psalms though. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1200 years ago, most Christians belonged to a single Church, whose main centers were Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. Irish Christians were definitely not Protestants in the 9th century, but there was not a separate "Celtic church" as distinct, say, from what was going on in Rome.  Variations such as you mention were fairly common throughout Christendom and particularly more pronounced in the British Isles, which had influence from Egyptian monasticism via St. Martin of Tours.  In most ways, though, church life in Ireland would have resembled church life in Rome far more than, for instance, church life in Antioch.  In any event, the numbering of the Psalms was pretty universal then, too, as Martin Luther had not yet arrived on the scene to revise the Biblical canon.  (There was some variation between the Latin West and the Greek East in this regard, but nothing that was a cause of division.)  &mdash; Preost  talk contribs 12:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I still don't see why this is mentioned here. That's just the Vulgata count, unrelated to this "bog psalter" in particular. We should just say "Psalm 83 (KJV Pslam 84)". dab (&#5839;) 19:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Date estimates
Who estimated the book to have been in the bog for 1200 years? The article claims vallem but the only know vellum documents are from late 13th century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.28.25 (talk • contribs)

To answer your enquiries-
 * I presume the National Museum of Ireland made an estimate of how long it had been in a bog as 1000-1200 years was quoted in their own press release.
 * Vellum has been around a lot longer than since the 13th century (unless you meant 13th century BCE!). A couple of medieval Irish documents include Codex Usserianus Primus, Cathach of St. Columba and Book of Kells.

Hope that helps. Afn 12:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Israel?
I just removed this line: "It has been widely, but incorrectly, reported that this psalm includes a plea to God to protect Israel from its enemies." I don't see what the content of psalm 83(84) has to do with this article, and the claim was unsupported. Feel free to add it back, if the relevance and support can be made clear.--Woden325 15:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I added in a paragraph dealing with this, along with a reference to an Irish news site. &mdash; Preost  talk contribs 15:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That was my addition, although I admit I was a bit hasty and sloppy in adding it. A major reason why this has been such big international news is because of the supposed prophetic element of the psalm with regard to the current Israel-Lebanon war and the erroneous content was mentioned in virtually every news story (and has still not been corrected by most of the websites and blogs that mentioned it). The new wording is much better as it is more complete and of course referenced, so thank you for adding it back in. MrDarwin 15:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This is much more clear, and now it makes sense in the context of the psalter. Thanks!--Woden325 16:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't get it. No new text was discovered. The text of Psalm 84/83 was never lost in the first place. This find could be notable for paleographic details or whatever, but certainly not for the content of the text. Maybe x-ray will reveal an Old Irish gloss or two, maybe (it they are very lucky) adding an item to the Old Irish lexicon, time will tell. So far, this is only a very rare copy of a perfectly boring (as in well-known) text. dab (&#5839;) 19:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The supposed "prophetic" nature of the find was not that it was a new text, but rather that the timing of the find and the page to which it was open allegedly shed light on current events. &mdash; Preost  talk contribs 21:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The article says: "Due to confusion regarding differences in numbering the Psalms, some news and websites reported that the Psalter was prophetically open to a reference to the destruction of Israel and connected the find with the current 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict." Don't get me wrong -- I consider myself a skeptic when it comes to so-called "prophecies" -- but even so, why should the possibility of a spiritual message be discounted, simply because it was open to #83?  It could still be "intended" for us to look in the MODERN Psalm #83 for the message.  Just a thought.  Raphael 22:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That may be true, but what is verifiable is that the interpretations being published were based on the assumption that the passage to which the book was opened was a different one than what was actually the case. That is, secondary sources are not reporting the interpretation which you give, but rather another one.  &mdash; Preost  talk contribs 22:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * it is verifiable alright, but is it at all notable or encyclopedic? this "prophecy" stuff is just a journalistic fad. It's irrelevant, and keeping it would be a Recentism. It's summer. Journalists are bored. That's all. What if the psalter had been open at psalm 82? Would that spell the end of Israel or what? really. dab (&#5839;) 14:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * By itself, no, but extremists will find justifications for anything. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2006-07-29 18:35

Dr. Bernard Meehan
FYI, I have called and emailed Dr. Meehan to ask for cooperation in obtaining free images of the work. So far the only photos I have seen online were AP images (copyrighted, natch), and I would love to have proper images of the work when they are available. Dr. Meehan, if you are looking at this, I'm happy to speak with you through the Foundation offices, or by checking my userpage and emailing me.--Brad Patrick 20:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

'Protestant' vs. 'Christian' bibles
ASDamick, the numbering in question is also used in the New American Bible. That Bible is used in both the catechism and liturgy of the Roman Catholic church. Please use the inclusive term 'Christian.' Wikipedia (especially Ireland-related topics on Wikipedia) has enough battlegrounds over this kind of thing, let's not make this another one.Dppowell 22:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with that. My only concern is that there is given the appearance that all Christians have only one numbering system for the Psalms, whereas the majority actually have a different one.  The article as it now stands has cleared up that issue.  &mdash; Preost  talk contribs 00:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Where?
Can anyone find out where in the Midlands it was found?--217.16.87.168 09:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand that this is being kept quite, to discourage treasure-seekers ClemMcGann 13:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I see, but they could at least mention the county - unless this itself is going to identify the bog field it was unearthed in.--217.16.87.168 08:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well now we know. - the townland of Faddan More in north Tipperary, ClemMcGann 09:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Verified?
Has the psalter been verified as real? I realise that the first line states that it is "...yet to be formally identified, named or dated..." but as yet there seems to be no question as to its authenticity. I'm astounded from the pictures (eg this one) that someone with a bulldozer would have even seen it, let alone realised it was potentially valuable rather than any old paper. Looking deeper, the LA times article states that he was using a backhoe, not a bulldozer. There's quite a difference between the two; which is right? this edit seems utterly wrong; a bulldozer is a large powered machine, a backhoe is a handheld tool, and spotting this with a backhoe is far more realistic than with a bulldozer, so I'm changing that. It makes the question a little less necessary - but that verification of authenticity would be nice! --Firi e n § 12:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Anyone who could hold a backhoe in his hands would be a superman. &mdash; Preost  talk contribs 13:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Hm. There I was thinking a backhoe was a straight hoe with the blade bent back/reversed, for tossing. In which case my original question comes back... how on earth does a worker see this small grubby thing from inside the working cabin? --Firi e n § 13:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Who knows? The news is reporting it this way, though.  The Daily Mail article, for instance, makes reference to a "digger driver" seeing the book, "just moments before he bulldozed the surrounding soil."  Whether we find it believable or not, this is what the sources say.  &mdash; Preost  talk contribs 14:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm such a skeptic... ;) --Firi e n § 15:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm also concerned--in a recent NPR interview, the consulted "expert" brushed off the question of authenticity saying "we know it's the genuine article, so there is no question of authenticity". Obviously, simply putting our concerns into the article would be original research, but surely _someone_ has discussed it in an interview...  216.52.69.217 17:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand that it was the mechanical digging arm attached to the rear of a JCB ClemMcGann 19:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio
It appears there's a copyright violation at the end of the Discovery section. The text appears to be word for word from the 1st reference article. I'd work on re-wording it myself, but I admit I'm not very good at that. Siradia 00:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Got it. &mdash; Preost  talk contribs 01:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

"Misreported prophecy" section contains misleading phrasing
Here is the text as it currently appears:

"When found, the book was opened to a page displaying Psalm 83 (in the Septuagint numbering), which corresponds with Psalm 84 in the Masoretic numbering used in most English-language translations.[4] Due to confusion regarding differences in numbering the Psalms, some news sites reported that the Psalter was "prophetically" open to a reference to the destruction of Israel and connected the find with the current 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. The matter was clarified by the director of the National Museum of Ireland, who pointed out the difference in Septuagint vs. Masoretic numbering and that the psalm in question contains no reference to the destruction of Israel.[6]"

In my opinion, this section is misleading in that 1) it implies that the Masoretic Psalm 83 references "the destruction of Israel" (when it comes nowhere close) and that 2) it implies that this reference is supported by the director, notwithstanding the fact that it wasn't the psalm in question. To correct these misleading impressions, I made a number of changes culminating in the following text:

"When found, the book was opened to a page displaying Psalm 83 (in the Septuagint numbering), which corresponds with Psalm 84 in the Masoretic numbering used in most English-language translations.[3] Due to confusion regarding differences in numbering the Psalms, some news sites reported that the Psalter was "prophetically" open to a reference to the destruction of Israel and connected the find with the current 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. The matter was clarified by the director of the National Museum of Ireland, who pointed out the difference in Septuagint vs. Masoretic numbering.[6] It should be noted that the Masoretic Psalm 83 actually describes a conspiracy against Israel and a plea for justice against the conspirators, not the "wiping of Israel from the map"."

This paragraph can be found at the first link; other attempts can be found at the following links. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Irish_bog_psalter&oldid=67641583 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Irish_bog_psalter&oldid=67243826 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Irish_bog_psalter&oldid=67100363 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Irish_bog_psalter&oldid=66919737 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Irish_bog_psalter&oldid=66851010

Unfortunately, ASDamick reverted every single one of my attempts to clarify these paragraphs, and in my opinion his rationales do not justify allowing the misrepresentation to remain, especially considering the section earlier on this very page in which a reader thanks Wikipedia for correcting misleading information in the news! Here is the exchange of comments, taken from the edit logs:

me -- fixed misleading wording ASDamick -- "wiped off the map" was the wording being used; "destruction" is hardly misleading. me -- Psalm 83 describes a conspiracy against Israel and a plea for justice against the conspirators, not the destruction of Israel ASDamick -- [revert without comment] me -- Psalm 83 describes a conspiracy against Israel and a plea for justice against the conspirators, not the destruction of Israel ASDamick -- The question is not what we read in the Psalm, but rather what was being reported, which is "the wiping of Israel from the map." See the Irish Times article. me -- [no comment] ASDamick -- WP is not in the business of correcting what "actually" is proper interpretation of the Bible. me -- Interpretation is one thing; misrepresentation of content is quite another ASDamick -- What's being represented is not the Psalm's contents, but what the "prophecy" sites were claiming.

I compromised several times based on ASDamick's comments, but he remained unmoved. I agree with him that interpretation is not the subject of this article, but this is not interpretation -- this is describing what the Psalm actually says. In my opinion, this no different from a statement such as "Reverend Smith clarified that the discovery of a Bible in the ruins of the World Trade Center is not prophetically significant. The Bible was open to Revelation 3, not Revelation 4.  Revelation 3 does not describe the World Trade Center attack." This does not address whether Revelation 4 does.

I respectfully request the opinion of a neutral third party on this disagreement.

204.145.242.1 15:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Describing what the Psalm "actually" says is an interpretation, since clearly those who regarded this as a prophecy of "wiping Israel off the map" were interpreting the psalm otherwise. Wikipedia is not in the business of correcting others' interpretations.  The article ought to reflect what is being verifiably reported in secondary sources, not corrections of what the subjects of those sources said.  To correct those statements would be original research and editorializing.  &mdash; Preost  talk contribs 15:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Summarizing the plain text of a passage is clearly not original research, and I seriously doubt it's editorializing. If I were to say that Matthew 1 is a secret encoded message from the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I'd be interpreting.  If I were to say that it is a geneology, I'd be summarizing.  Saying that "Psalm 83 actually describes a conspiracy against Israel and a plea for justice against the conspirators" is a clear summary of the psalm in question.  I could quote the entire text on the page, but that would obviously be unnecessarily long.


 * As for reflecting what news sources are reporting, that works only to the point that they're reporting accurately. If CNN reported that the Canterbury Tales were a set of first century epic poems set in Greece, Wikipedia should add an appropriate correction instead of blindly parrotting them.


 * 204.145.242.1 02:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No one (that I know of) counts the Canterbury Tales as a primary religious text and bases answers about Life, The Universe, and Everything from it (although I must admit to being amused at the idea of the Miller's Tale being a theological treatise). Claims to "summarizing the plain text of a passage" in the Bible, however, is precisely the sort of thing that started the Protestant Reformation.


 * Context is important. The context here is not what Wikipedia editors think the psalm "actually" says, but what verifiable secondary sources said about its interpreters.  We don't get to add new viewpoints into disputes.  We describe the viewpoints of the disputants and base those descriptions on verifiable secondary sources.  If readers want to determine that the disputants are wrong, they can look at the obvious links to the primary source texts in question.  It's not up to the editorship to correct them.  Correction belongs to interpreters and original researchers.  (Or, to put it another way, "'Vengeance is mine,' saith the Lord.")  &mdash; Preost  talk contribs 02:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's be honest - ending the debate over Psalm 83 vs 84 is simple!
All,

The resolution to this issue of Psalm 83 vs. 84 is very simple. Show us the actual text that the Psalter was open to when the book was found.

I find it strange that no one has actually referenced the actual text. Instead, everyone is concentrating on the whether it is Psalm 83 in the Septuagint (LXX), or Psalm 84 in the Vulgate.

I can't help but think that there is some intentionality in pointlessly focusing on the numbering system in these two versions of the bible. For those who are not bible scholars, this becomes mind-boggling. By all means, continue the debate if your objective is simply to muddy the waters.

However, if you wish to be clear, show us the actual text to which the Psalter was open. Then it is simply a matter of going to whatever version of the bible you happen to prefer and finding that text in whichever Psalm it happens to show up. Thus the debate over Psalm 83 or Psalm 84 is ended.

I'll be interested to see if this has any impact on the "Misreported Prophecy" section in your article.

E-wings

Healing Prayer Associated with the Psalter
Can anyone confirm or deny the existence of a "Healing Prayer" associated with the psalms of the Faddan More Psalter? Obviously, any story that is found in The Sun (US tabloid) has to be taken with several grains of salt, but enough details about the psalter got reported correctly that I wonder if there was any truth to the other half of the article's story.

The prayer's text reads ''Thy power and craft is (sic) good dear God. Thy herbs and green things do strengthen the weak, thy songs are balm for the wounded and weary. With hyssop and rosemary, thou cleanseth (sic) our eyes and mouth. Our soul sings in want of thy pure medicines.'' The article says the prayer itself was written in Gaelic (what we'd now call Old Irish) rather than the Latin of the psalms. Elemtilas (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds dubious to me (it's not an extract from any Psalm is it?). There's nothing about any extra texts at this page. Johnbod (talk) 04:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Faddan More Psalter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110615153450/http://www.museum.ie/GetAttachment.aspx?id=432d9d81-909c-4921-a86c-0992c01b4194 to http://www.museum.ie/GetAttachment.aspx?id=432d9d81-909c-4921-a86c-0992c01b4194
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070627222519/http://museum.ie/news/details_news.asp?sPressType=1&newsid=231 to http://www.museum.ie/news/details_news.asp?sPressType=1&newsid=231
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061207120431/http://www.explore.ie/ireland/article.php?ID=143 to http://www.explore.ie/ireland/article.php?ID=143

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:53, 4 June 2017 (UTC)