Redwing Pond

Redwing Pond was named for its redwinged blackbirds, which loved the pondshore’s cattails.

Dr. James J. S. Johnson

Can the rush grow up without mire? can the flag grow without water?  (Job 8:11)

Wetlands are defined by their mix of hydrophilic plants (such as “rush” and “flags” and cattails), wetland hydrology, and hydric soils.  And redwinged blackbirds love cattails.

Redwinged-Blackbird.TrekNature

See comment to posting (about pondside Wood Storks, foraging in Florida) in December of AD2016, for listing of Redwood Pond Institute / Cross Timbers Institute departments.


 

When in Scotland, Eat Well!

When In Scotland, Eat Well!

Nevertheless He [i.e., God] left not Himself without witness, in that He did good, and He gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness.  (Acts 14:17)

full-Scottish-breakfast.TripAdvisor

Good food is a proof of God’s providential care and power, as Acts 14:17 indicates.  [See my analysis, of this truth, in “Our Daily Bread:  How Food Proves God’s Providence”, ACTS & FACTS, 40(4):8-9 (April 2011), posted at  https://www.icr.org/article/our-daily-bread-how-food-proves-gods/ .]

So, here is my Scottish-memories limerick, to help me recall some wonderful food that I ate while in Scotland, including many “full Scottish breakfast” buffets (with hot black teas), plus gourmet later-in-the-day treasures like Norway Lobster (a/k/a “Langoustine”, Nephrops norvegicus  —  a marine crustacean resembling a mini-lobster, i.e., a crawfish that tastes somewhat like a prawn-sized shrimp), haggis (which looks like a large egg roll — and tastes like Pennsylvania Dutch scrapple), venison, Isle of Mull mussels, scones (with clotted cream),  sea scallops (e.g., “Queenies”), salmon, haddock (as part of “fish and chips”), haggis-&-cracked-black-pepper potato chips, Irn-Bru ice cream, and more!

Isle-of-Mull-scallops

Recalling Scottish Cuisine, in the Highlands & Hebrides

Scallops, haggis, fish and chips

Are well welcomed by my lips;

Norway lobster, steak of deer,

Scones and tea  give me cheer;

Scallops, haggis, fish and chips!

[writ by JJSJ while leaving Scotland, 21st July AD2019]

Norway-Lobster.DailyScandinavian

Tired Feet, Refreshed by Cold Tidewater

FOOTWASHING, IN COLD TIDEWATER, CAN BE VERY REFRESHING

Dr. James J. S. Johnson

Jesus saith to him [i.e., Peter], He that is washed needs not, except to wash his feet, but is clean every whit; and ye are clean, but not all.   (John 13:10)

Iona-MartyrsBay-beach-wideangle

After a lot of hiking along Martyrs Bay, on Iona island (19th July AD2019), a small isle in Scotland’s Inner Hebrides, I refreshed my feet with a good foot-soaking (for about 5 minutes — as long as I could tolerate the cold!), in the frigid shore-waters of the Iona’s shore.  Hence this limerick, by which to remember that very cool experience:

AFTER HOURS OF HIKING, SOAK YOUR FEET IN THE FRIGID SHORE-WATERS OF IONA SOUND

Hiking for hours, on Scottish ground,

Fatigued feet trek, toward Iona’s Sound;

Footgear off — pants cuffs rolled,

Step in sea-water — c-c-cold!

“Freezing” tired feet, in Iona’s Sound!

Iona-MartyrsBay-shoreline


 

Psalm 145:8-16, “The Case of the Missing Nûn”

Psalm 145:8-16,  “The Case of the Missing Nûn” 

(An Exegetical Study)

James J. S. Johnson, JD, ThD

JohnKnox-statue-StGilesCathedral.Edinburgh

PSALM 145:8-16 

 חַנּ֣וּן וְרַח֣וּם יְהוָ֑ה אֶ֥רֶךְ אַ֝פַּ֗יִם וּגְדָל־חָֽסֶד׃
9 טוֹב־יְהוָ֥ה לַכֹּ֑ל וְ֝רַחֲמָ֗יו עַל־כָּל־מַעֲשָֽׂיו׃
10 יוֹד֣וּךָ יְ֭הוָה כָּל־מַעֲשֶׂ֑יךָ וַ֝חֲסִידֶ֗יךָ יְבָרֲכֽוּכָה׃
11 כְּב֣וֹד מַלְכוּתְךָ֣ יֹאמֵ֑רוּ וּגְבוּרָתְךָ֥ יְדַבֵּֽרוּ׃
12 לְהוֹדִ֤יעַ׀ לִבְנֵ֣י הָ֭אָדָם גְּבוּרֹתָ֑יו וּ֝כְב֗וֹד הֲדַ֣ר מַלְכוּתֽוֹ׃
13 מַֽלְכוּתְךָ֗ מַלְכ֥וּת כָּל־עֹֽלָמִ֑ים וּ֝מֶֽמְשֶׁלְתְּךָ֗ בְּכָל־דּ֥וֹר וָדֽוֹר׃
14 סוֹמֵ֣ךְ יְ֭הוָה לְכָל־הַנֹּפְלִ֑ים וְ֝זוֹקֵ֗ף לְכָל־הַכְּפוּפִֽים׃
15 עֵֽינֵי־כֹ֭ל אֵלֶ֣יךָ יְשַׂבֵּ֑רוּ וְאַתָּ֤ה נֽוֹתֵן־לָהֶ֖ם אֶת־אָכְלָ֣ם בְּעִתּֽוֹ׃
16 פּוֹתֵ֥חַ אֶת־יָדֶ֑ךָ וּמַשְׂבִּ֖יעַ לְכָל־חַ֣י רָצֽוֹן׃

Qumran-Isaiah.scroll

  1. Verification of Biblical Text and its English Translation:

The above-quoted text is taken from the Westminster Leningrad Codex (“WLC”) of the Hebrew Bible.  There is no serious controversy about the Masoretic Hebrew text of Psalm 145.  However, some Old Testament sources (and some textual analysts) differ with the Masoretic  Text of verse 13, because it deviates from the otherwise-perfect acrostic structure of Psalm 145.  In other words, the structure of Psalm 145 follows the exact sequence of the Hebrew alphabet’s 22 letters with one exception – the Hebrew letter for N (nûn) is missing!  What explains that?

The obvious question is: why would an otherwise perfectly acrostic psalm have only 21 verses, with each verse beginning with the next Hebrew alphabet letter, except for N (nûn)?

Many textual analysts (typically “critical text” advocates), as well as a few modern English translations (including the New International Version, Revised Standard Version of 1952, Holman Christian Standard Version of 2003), have attempted to “correct” this apparent omission – based upon their self-asserted assumption that the psalmist could not possibly have intended to omit one letter of the Hebrew alphabet.

The skipped-nûn text of Psalm 145, provided in the Masoretic Text – and retained in the Judaica Press Tanach (of 1917, 1936, and 2001) – is followed by the King James Bible, Bishops’ Bible of 1568, Coverdale Bible of 1535, Geneva Bible of 1599, Darby translation, Spanish Reina Valera versions of 1602-1995, as well as many other translations.[1]

But, as will be shown below, that unwarranted assumption has resulted in committing the Pharisaic error of adding to God’s Word, an arrogant practice prohibited by Deuteronomy 4:2.  In trying to (supposedly) “correct” the Biblical text, by supplying a “fitting” phrase to complete the acrostic, the originally intentional omission’s poignant message is forfeited.[2]  (This will be discussed, below.)

So, how have some ancient (and not-so-ancient) sources tried to “correct” the missing nûn?

Although it might seem better to discuss two New Testament passages later in this analysis, those two passages are nonetheless inserted here because they both help to introduce analytical missteps taken by several who have analyzed Psalm 145:13. Specifically, said missteps are based upon the insistent (and unwarranted) assumption that an almost-perfect acrostic psalm (with a missing nûn) “must” reflect a “copyist’s omission” (i.e., a failure in textual preservation and/or transmission), as opposed to possibly being the intentional omission by the human author (David) – due to an intentional almost-perfect acrostic was ultimately intended by the divine Author (God the Holy Spirit), to emphasize something that is or was “missing”.  This concept is sometimes called employing a “loud silence”.

First example of a “loud silence” omission: the opening of Paul’s letter to the Galatians.

A review of Paul’s epistles shows that Paul routinely began his correspondence with appreciation for how God was blessing his intended readers, and how Paul was praying for their spiritual growth (see, e.g., 1st Thessalonians 1:28; 1st Corinthians 1:4-9; Romans 1:8-12; Ephesians 1:15-16; Philippians 1:3-11; Colossians 1:3-9), but not so with the Galatians.

As you begin to read Paul’s letter to the Galatian Christians, you can tell immediately that something is radically wrong, because he does not open his letter with his usual praise to God and prayer for the saints. He has no time!  Paul is about to engage in a battle for the truth of the Gospel and the liberty of the Christian life.[3]

In short, by noticing the pattern of Paul’s customary beginning to his New Testament epistles, and by noticing how that beginning is “missing” (i.e., excluded) in Paul’s letter to the Galatians, provides us with an insight into a contrast – Paul deliberately departed from his usual letter-writing custom, to provide an emphatic point: the Galatians were in the worst of trouble![4]

Second example: Christ refers to human conduct in the days of Noah and Lot.

When describing the condition of people who would be unprepared when the Lord returns to Earth in glorious power and punitive judgment, the Lord Jesus Christ alluded to the contemporaries of Noah (who were judged by the Flood) and the contemporaries of Lot (who were judged in the fiery destruction of Sodom) – an did so with “loud silence” omissions.

And as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.  They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.  Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded.  But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.  Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.[5]

Notice the behaviors that Christ mentioned, as characterizing the “days of Noah”: eating, drinking, and getting married.  None of these behaviors is per se wrong![6]

Christ surprisingly omitted mention of the overwhelmingly wicked and violent behaviors that dominated pre-Flood humanity (see Genesis 6:5 & 6:11-13). Likewise, when referring to Noah’s contemporaries, Christ omitted mention of the strange sexual sins that the pre-Flood population was known for, which were somehow comparable to how the Sodomites were infamous for “going after strange flesh” (compare Genesis 6:1-4 with Jude 1:6-7).  Why did Christ omit mentioning the pre-Flood perversions, corruptions, and violence?

In similar manner, notice that the behaviors that Christ mentioned, as characterizing the “days of Lot”: eating, drinking, buying, selling, planting, and building.  None of these behaviors is per se wrong!  As before, when referring to Noah’s contemporaries, Christ omitted mention of the Sodomites’ perverse and prurient lust for violent and aberrant sexual abominations, a sordid and vile habit that the Sodomites of old are still remembered for today (e.g., in the English word “sodomy” – as noted in Genesis 18 & Jude 1:7).  Why did Christ omit mentioning the perversions, corruptions, and violence for which Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed?

Try to imagine the reaction of Christ’s original audience, when He spoke the words recorded in Luke 17:26-30. When the contemporaries of Noah and of Lot were so described, by Christ Himself, the “loud silences” must have been jarring – what trait was Christ condemning the antediluvians and Sodomites for?  Was it for their horribly ugly “fruits”, or for the wicked “root” of ignoring God, rejecting God, going about life in a way that excluded God and His Word?

The point here is that Christ surprisingly omitted what His audience expected to hear, and He accomplished this dramatically by a conspicuous omission of what was expected “in context”. Having recognized that there is Scriptural precedent for the usage of conspicuous “loud silence” omissions, a summary of other (so-called) solutions to the almost-perfect acrostic (or Psalm 145) is provided.

The lack of the נ verse has caused some to question whether the verse may have fallen out of the Masoretic Text of the Psalm due to scribal error. They seek to justify this view on the basis that the נ [nûn] verse is found in one medieval Hebrew manuscript, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint and the Syriac.

Indeed, some modern versions, such as the ESV and NIV, add the supposed missing נ verse to Psalm 145 because of its presence in these witnesses. However, we believe that the omission of the נ verse is intentional and not at all due to scribal error, and that the evidence for the proposed נ verse is insubstantial and the verse is rightly omitted.[7]

There is only one medieval Hebrew manuscript that includes an extra phrase, to complete the alphabetic acrostic (saying “the LORD is faithful to all His promises, and loving towards all He has made” – the Hebrew text of which begins with the word ne’emân, the singular masculine  niphal participle form of the verb ’aman, “to be firm”/“to affirm”, i.e., “to be faithful”), yet even that manuscript (in Dublin’s Trinity College) only includes the extra phrase as a marginal writing on the bottom of the page, and appears to be a gratuitous redundancy of Verse 17.

[At Dublin’s Trinity College] there is … one medieval Hebrew manuscript. The נ verse appears in this manuscript as:

 נאמן יהוה  בכל  דבריו וחסיד  בכול מעשיו    

[The LORD is faithful in all his words and holy in all his works]

However, this verse does not appear where it might reasonably be expected in the body of the text, but rather at the bottom of the manuscript page, as if it were a suggested correction of the text. Additionally, the proposed verse is similar in its first part and identical in its second part to v17:

צדיק יהוה בכל דרכיו וחסיד בכול מעשיו     

[The LORD is righteous in all his ways and holy in all his works] [8]

Thus, the inclusion of the verse introduces a repetition into the Psalm which otherwise does not contain any repetition. Redundancy, as a repeating emphasis, does sometimes occur in the Psalms.  However, the redundancy that occurs, when this “extra nûn verse” is inserted, does not fit with any contextual pattern of repetition in Psalm 145.  Thus, the extra verse insertion “cures” one anomaly of form, only to introduce an unnecessary anomaly of content!

Also, the Dead Sea Scrolls avoid the awkward omission by including this extra phrase (“saving” the alphabetic acrostic’s “need” for an N, by inserting a phrase that begins with the Hebrew word ne’emân [“faithful”]), but the Dead Sea Scrolls variant doesn’t square with the solitary variant held by Dublin’s Trinity College.

[Regarding the variant reading of Psalm 145:13 found in] the Hebrew Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) … the verse appears as follows:

נאמן אלוהים בדרכיו וחסיד בכול מעשיו    

(God is faithful in his ways and holy in all his works)

There are a number of differences between this verse [Psalm 145:13] in the DSS and the one found in the medieval Hebrew manuscript. The name of God is different, being God ( אלוהים ) rather than LORD ( יהוה ). This is significant since the name of God which is used throughout the Psalm in similar expressions is LORD ( יהוה ) and not God ( אלוהים ): ‘great is the LORD’, ‘the LORD is gracious and full of compassion’, ‘the LORD is good’; indeed, in the very next verse after the supposed missing נ verse, the reading is ‘the LORD upholdeth’. Other differences between the manuscript and the DSS readings are: ‘his ways’ in the DSS as opposed to the Hebrew manuscript ‘his words’, and the omission in the DSS of the word ‘all’, which the Hebrew manuscript includes.[9]

In other words, the Dead Sea Scrolls variant, which includes an “extra nûn verse”, won’t match up with the only medieval Hebrew manuscript that has an “extra nûn verse”.   (In forensic contexts, such as courtroom trials, this does not look good for the two conflicting witnesses  — whose conflicting testimony notably disagrees with the vast majority of “regular” witnesses.)

According to the apparatus in Kittel’s (1973) Stuttgart-printed edition of Biblica Hebraica, this same inserted “extra nûn verse” is also found in some Syriac and Septuagint translation copies, though apparently not all copies of those translations.[10]  Regarding the Septuagint Greek translation’s variant (in Psalm 145:13), Larry Brigden notices worse problems with the Septuagint rendering.

The rendering of the supposed נ verse in the Septuagint (a Greek translation of the Old Testament dating from the second century BC) is:

πιστος κυριος εν τοις λογοις αυτου και οσιος εν πασι τοις εργοις αυτου

 (The Lord is faithful in his words and holy in all his works)

The Septuagint differs in the first part of the verse from the Hebrew manuscript, simply having ‘his words’ rather than the Hebrew’s ‘all his words’. In addition, the Septuagint has ‘his words’ as opposed to the DSS’s ‘his ways’.[11]

Once again, the irregular witnesses – who try to insert an “extra nûn verse” to complete the alphabetic acrostic — can’t get their “stories” to match.

Likewise, appealing to the non-Lamsa Syriac translation variant, which includes yet another variant alternative “extra nûn verse”, provides yet another inconsistent “witness” against the Masoretic Text’s transmission of Psalm 145.

The Syriac translation of the נ verse has:

The Lord is faithful in his words and righteous in all his works.

There is a significant difference between this version and the Hebrew manuscript, the DSS and the Septuagint in the second part of the verse: the Syriac has ‘righteous’, whereas the other three textual witnesses have ‘holy’. As seen from this survey of the [variant] witnesses to the supposed missing נ verse, it is evident that there is no consistent testimony about the reading, but clear disagreement among themselves. This is commonly an indication that a verse is spurious.[12]

Thus, the non-Lamsa Syriac variant further demonstrates that the few-and-far-between efforts, of some textual handlers, to supply an “extra nûn verse” are not rooted in an underlying Hebrew original.  Having reviewed the rare and completely inconsistent variants, the question remains: if God intentionally omitted to include a “nûn verse”, why? How is the message of Psalm 145 furthered by such a literary surprise?

Just as the departure from Paul’s customary correspondence structure gave emphasis to the alarm and danger that he proclaimed to the Galatians, — and just as Christ’s allusions to the ordinary business-as-usual attitudes, in the pre-Flood and Sodomite populations, were surprising descriptions to Christ’s Jewish audiences, — omitting the nûn, in the almost-perfect alphabetic acrostic of Psalm 145, would arrest the (anticipated) Jewish reader with the question: why?

Larry Brigden, senior editorial consultant for the Trinitarian Bible Society, suggests [see Footnote #7] that David is contrasting his own fallibility with the infallibility of God.

“Psalm 145 shows the same deliberate variation from the normal form of the acrostic pattern for an intended purpose. The Psalm is one of praise to God. The acrostic pattern is probably chosen to bring to bear the full resources of the Hebrew language upon this expression of praise. It is to be full-orbed praise where every letter of the Hebrew alphabet evokes a Hebrew word which strikes a new chord in that praise. So verse 3 is ג and the Psalmist thinks of גדול (‘great’), ‘great is the LORD’; verse 9 is ט and the Psalmist thinks of טוב (‘good’), ‘the LORD is good’, and so on. When he comes to verse 13, the letter is מ and the Psalmist thinks of מלכותך (‘thy kingdom’), ‘thy kingdom is an everlasting kingdom’. This verse completes a distinct section of the Psalm and is a climax point in the Psalm.

The last part of Psalm 145 begins at verse 14 and continues to the end of the Psalm, in which David praises the Lord for His condescending love. The Psalmist had to decide how to begin this section.

The next letter in the alphabet is נ; what word would this evoke for the Psalmist?

נפל (‘fall’ or ‘fail’) perhaps?

But the Lord does not ‘fall’ or ‘fail’. It is men who ‘fall’ and ‘fail’. So what does the Psalmist do? He makes a striking point by omitting the נ verse and then writing the next verse, the ס (samekh) verse, as:

Psalm145-samekh-verse.png

Every Hebrew reader of the Psalm will notice something striking at this point: it is the Psalmist himself who ‘falls’ ( נפל ) in the omission of the נ verse.

What more graphic way to highlight the frailty of men and the condescending love of God than by omitting the נ verse and following with a verse that speaks of the Lord upholding ‘all that fall’ [lecâl hannōphlîm]?   The structure of the Psalm ‘chimes’, as it were, to the thought expressed by the words of the Psalm. Thus, the omission of the נ verse is deliberate and for an intended effect, an effect that relies on a slight variation from an otherwise closely followed acrostic form.  [Quoting Larry Brigden, footnote #7]

The purpose of the variation, or apparent irregularity, from the normal acrostic form is not the same in all acrostic Psalms, but Psalms 25 and 145 plainly demonstrate that such variation is a deliberate literary device employed for a particular purpose. Clearly, if the Psalmist chooses the acrostic pattern for a purpose, any variation from that pattern is also likely to be for a purpose.”  [Quoting Larry Bridgen  —  see Footnote #7]

So why would the Hebrew verb naphal (“to fall”, i.e., to fail) be a key to solving this alphabet-linked riddle?

Remember, this psalm is uniquely about David’s life of praise to God.  It is not a mizmôr (“praise-song”) authored for the choirmaster, or for the sons of Korah to sing.

Rather, this is the only tehillâh “praise” psalm that David ever wrote—this psalm is quite personal to David’s life of worship.

It is true that David was, for the most part, a “man after God’s heart” (1st Samuel 13:14; Acts 13:22), yet there was a period of David’s life that failed to worship God (2nd Samuel chapter 11).  That chapter of David’s life is forgiven (Psalm 51), so it is not replayed to David’s shame in eternity.

However, that sin-stained timeframe, of that shameful chapter in David’s life, is a prolonged loss of opportunity to worship God. As a worshiper of God, with temporal opportunities to honor Him, David failed — and those times of failure are now lost forever. (David is a fair representative of all of us – time-wasting sinners – in this tragic respect.)

Those times of sin (for David, and for us), which appeared pleasant “for a season” – those earthly hours and days and weeks – were wasted, and they are forever missing.  (What is not stored up in Heaven, as eternal treasure, perishes (Matthew 6:20).

When David fell (naphal) he lived human experiences that are erased by God’s forgiveness – but those hours cannot count as worship hours; those days were not productive of treasures laid up in Heaven, immune from rust, moths, or thieves.  They are gone.

Psalm145.12-14.Verse14-in-English

Even so, God restores the fallen (Psalm 145:14). This is a hidden-in-plain-view precious gem – if not the most precious theological jewel – within this very personal psalm of David.

In sum, the preponderance of the relevant and reliable evidence shows that the Masoretic Text rendering of Psalm 145 (and of Psalm 145:8-16 in particular) is a faithful transmission of the original text of David’s very personal praise, the tehillâh of Psalm 145.

2. Understanding Literary/Historical Background and Context:

Psalm 145 is a psalm of King David, so it was written about 1000BC.   As noted above, Psalm 145’s literary purpose (as the Hebrew text of its first verse uniquely indicates) is to provide David’s very personal praise (tehillâh) of the LORD, with a blending of God’s greatness as the transcendent holy God He is (Psalm 145:1-7) with God’s mercy-filled goodness to humans like David, who continues with personal gratitude for God’s grace and salvation (Psalm 145:8-21).

Like many (though not all) of the psalms, it focuses on true worship: praising the true God.  However, Psalm 145 has a unique message:  it is David’s personal appreciation for God’s greatness (God’s glory as God, the God of all creation) and God’s special goodness to David (God’s benevolent care of David, as David’s very personal God).

Part of the historical-biographical background, that appears relevant to understanding this passage (Psalm 145:8-16), is the overall trend of David’s life (1st Samuel 13:14; Acts 13:22), with recognition that David’s life did have one major interruption of very serious sin (2nd Samuel chapter 11) which is now redemptively forgiven and erased – thanks to Christ our Savior — from God’s record-books (Psalm 51; Luke 10:20).  During that time in David’s life he was “AWOL” (“away without leave”) from God’s holy service.  Being “out of service” is a waste of precious Earth-time, and it has other tragic consequences too.

Parallelism in Psalm 145 (discussed at length below) likewise provides other content comparisons that help readers to discern other important details within the text of the psalm.

3. Identification of Literary Structure of the Book:

Psalms appears to be internally divided into five series of chapters: (a) 1-41; (b) 42-72; (c) 73-89; (d) 90-106; (e) 107-145; plus a five-chapter “grand finale” epilogue (146-150), based upon repeating doxology closure verses (which act as literary dividers, somewhat like the toledôth divisions in Genesis) that occurs at Psalms 41:13; 72:19; 89:52; 106:48; and 145:21.[13]  If these five sections correspond to the five books of Moses, as ancient Jewish commentators have guessed, Psalm 110 would belongs to the fifth section that corresponds to Deuteronomy.[14]

One overarching literary theme, repeatedly developed throughout all of the Psalms, is that God’s glory is shown (and thus should be rightly recognized by humans) in and through conflict.

Psalm 145 explicitly identifies itself as the only tehillâh psalm “of David”.[15]  Psalm 145, as a tehillâh psalm, contrasts with the “song”-psalms (i.e., psalms introduced as mizmôr psalms) such as the first Hebrew verses (which are often denoted as a “title” in English translation, obscuring the fact that the original Hebrew text includes phrases that English translations render as editorial-appearing “titles”) in Psalm 24, 29, 30, 31, 38, 39, 40, 41, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 73, 75, 76, 77, 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85, 87, 88, 92, 98, 100, 101, 108, 109, 110, 139, 140, 141, and 143.[16]

Not all of the Psalms were authored by David, although David is the most frequently named author (of those whose human author is known).[17]

The fact that David was the human co-author of Psalm 145, and that the Holy Spirit was the divine co-author of Psalm 145, is accented by the first verse in the Hebrew text of Psalm 145, which begins: “a praise of David”.

4. Identification of Grammatical and Syntactical Keys:

The entire book of Psalms has the literary form of Hebrew poetry – which means its content is presented in paralleled sentences.[18]

English poetry is defined by its verbal “hardware,” with the delivery of its pronounced sounds identifying the text as poetry. Hebrew poetry, however, is defined by its “software,” its verbal information and meaning, which is presented with parallelism of thought, not sound.

In short, Hebrew poetry is defined by parallelism in meaning, whereas English poetry is defined by the format of verse and sound (such as rhyme and meter). This is easier to illustrate than to explain. Consider the below examples of both kinds of poetry.

Example of English poetry, using a limerick rhyme and meter format.

Some Get a “Bang” Out of Fables

The Bible, to read, some are able,

Yet prefer to read a false fable;

            Though God’s Word says “six days,”

            A “Big Bang” gets their praise,

Their doctrine, therefore, is unstable.1

Verses of English poetry routinely rely on rhyme. In limerick poems, the rhyme pattern is AA, BB, A (because able, fable, and unstable all rhyme, as do days and praise). Other poems often use other patterns, but almost without exception some kind of rhyme is used to identify English verse-based literature as poetry.

English poetry, being dominated by sound, also relies on meter, the rhythmic “beat” of a poem. The number of stressed syllables in all A lines should match, as should those in the B lines. One English tradition uses iambic pentameter, employed by English poets John Donne, William Shakespeare, and John Milton.2 Note that rhyme and rhythm neither provide nor depend upon a poem’s meaning.

Unlike the rhyme and rhythm of English poetry, Hebrew poetry is defined by informational parallelism—parallelism of meaning.3 The paralleled thoughts may emphasize good and bad, wise and unwise, reverent and blasphemous. They may or may not recount historical events, although time and place, if mentioned at all, are less emphasized than in narrative prose. This informational parallelism―using comparative lines and phrases―portrays similarities and/or contrasts, or comparisons of whole and part, or some other kind of logical associations of meaning.

Knowing this linguistic trait helps us to correctly read biblical Hebrew poetry. Since such poetry requires complementation of meaning (not sound), both halves of a verbal parallelism must be reviewed together as a complementary unit in order to understand fully what either half means, as well as to understand how they complement each other in meaning. Almost always the paralleled lines come in pairs,4 but sometimes a triplet is used.5

Major examples of Hebrew poetry in the Old Testament are Psalms, Proverbs, Lamentations, and Song of Solomon—but not Genesis.

Example of Hebrew poetry, illustrating parallelisms of both similarity and contrast.

Psalm 104:29   Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled:
thou takest away their breath, they die, and return to their dust.

Psalm 104:30   Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created:
and thou renewest the face of the earth.

Note how both lines in verse 29 show parallel similarity of meaning, as do both lines in verse 30. Yet verse 29 informationally contrasts with verse 30—verse 29 tells how God controls the death of certain creatures (like leviathan, mentioned in verse 26), but verse 30 tells how God controls the life of His creatures. In order to get the full meaning of either verse 29 or verse 30, the total parallelism must be appreciated. This is the hallmark of Hebrew poetry.

For another example, read any chapter in Proverbs. They are dominated by parallelism of meaning, verse after verse. Sometimes the parallelism spreads over consecutive verses, as in Proverbs 28:15-16 (“wicked ruler” in verse 15; “the prince” who is a “great oppressor” in verse 16). Sometimes the parallelism is condensed within one verse, as in Proverbs 28:28 (“when the wicked rise, men hide themselves: but when they perish, the righteous increase”). Parallelism dominates the informational structure of Hebrew poetry. Careful reading cannot miss it.[19]

In sum, Hebrew poetry is recognized by the parallelism used to convey the author’s message. Accordingly, the text of Psalm 145 implements Hebrew parallelism to convey its God-honoring message.  This parallelism in Psalm 145:8-16 can be diagrammed as follows:

The Lord is gracious, and full of compassion; slow to anger, and of great mercy.

The Lord is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.

The LORD being “gracious” and the LORD being “good to all” provides parallel thought. Likewise, God’s “compassion” (which includes being “slow to anger” and being “of great mercy”) matches the fact that His “tender mercies are over all His works”.

10 All thy works shall praise thee, O Lord; and thy saints shall bless thee.

The LORD is to be praised by all His works; He is to be blessed by His saints. Although all of God’s works will glorify Him, one way or another, voluntarily or involuntarily — yet surely God’s own people should lead in lauding Him as He is due!

And what should we glorify and praise God for? God should be lauded for His powerful deeds and for His majestic splendor!

11 They shall speak of the glory of thy kingdom, and talk of thy power, 12 to make known to the sons of men his mighty acts, and the glorious majesty of his kingdom.

13 Thy kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and thy dominion endureth throughout all generations.

Verse 11-12 complement Verse 13 – God’s people shall speak of His glorious kingdom, His power, and His rule over humanity is both glorious and never-ending. As David refers to God’s “kingdom”, and the “glorious majesty” of God’s reign, David can compare God’s kingship (which is absolutely perfect in every way) with David’s own mortal and limited and imperfect  experiences as an earthly king.  This is a sober comparison.

This involves a “bump” in David’s otherwise doxologically prioritized journey – verse 14.

David appears to be recalling how God’s rulership over the affairs of men and women (including their sexual “affairs”) include how God deals with moral failings. (So David’s lost opportunity to praise God, during the time when David was “out of service”, appears as a “missing” letter in the otherwise-complete “alphabet” of David’s life as God’s man.)

But there is hope! God is gracious, God is merciful, God restores the repentant sinner!

14 The Lord upholdeth all that fall, and raiseth up all those that be bowed down.

Verses 15-16 continue to focus on David’s restored life, as God’s man. David recognizes that God is the ultimate provider of all that is needful and good. God gives us what is truly valuable, for this life and for life hereafter all “in due season”.[20]

15 The eyes of all wait upon thee; and thou givest them their meat in due season. 

16 Thou openest thine hand, and satisfiest the desire of every living thing.

Obviously David is serious about living a life of worship!

In sum, the parallel structure of Psalm 145’s verses begin with David extoling God, with parallel content blending God’s transcendent greatness (verses 1-7), followed by a more personal appreciation for Who God is – to David – and how believers (like David) need to appreciate and praise God now and hereafter (verses 8-21).

5. Identification of Lexical Keys (i.e., Biblical word studies):

Several Hebrew words are especially noteworthy in Psalm 145:8-16. As noted above, Psalm 145 is uniquely titled (in the original Hebrew text) as a tihellâh of David, in contrast to the many psalms which are titled as “praise-songs” (singular mizmôr) of David.  That lexical uniqueness alone show grab our attention, prompting us to investigate how (and why) Psalm 145 is different from every other Davidic psalms that is titled as a “praise” psalm.

The word “praise” (as used in the Old Testament) routinely translates one of several Hebrew verbs: barâk (also translated “to bless”), halâl (usually in the piêl form), zamâr (also translated “to sing”), yadâh (“to praise”, with the connotation of stretching out the hands, usually in the hiphîl form), and shabâḥ (“to laud”, usually in the piêl form, with the Aramaic equivalent verb being shebâḥ).[21]

Of these verbs, barâk is used about 330 times (usually translated “bless”),[22] halâl is used about 165 times (usually translated as “to praise” or “to glory”),[23] zamâr is used about 50 times (usually translated “to sing praises”), [24] yadâh is used about 111 times (usually translated “to praise” or “to give thanks”), [25] shabâḥ is used about 11 times (usually translated “to praise”),[26] and shebâḥ is used 5 times (always translated as “to praise”) [27]

Since only Psalm 145 is explicitly titled as David’s psalm of tehillah (Psalm 145:1, Hebrew text), it is useful to see how related words are translated into English.  The root verb, of course, is halâl (usually in the piêl form, translated as “to praise” or “to glory”).  The singular noun tehillah usually appears, yet sometimes the plural form (tehillim) is used (e.g., Isaiah 60:6).

The usages of the Hebrew verb halâl – in the poêl [active participle] form (e.g., Job 12:17; Ecclesiastes 7:7; Isaiah 44:25), and in the puâl [passive intensive] form (e.g., Proverbs 12:8; Psalms 78:63), and in the hithpaêl [reflexive] form (e.g., Psalm 97:7; Proverbs 25:4) — emphasize that “glorying” means to manifest the true character/nature of whoever or whatever is doing the “glorying” – for good or for bad.[28]

In other words, a fool who “glories” in falsity (e.g., Isaiah 44:25; Psalm 97:7; Proverbs 25:4) shows the deluded folly and vainglory by which his empty character has become characterized. A fool glories in his folly.  God’s glory, however, is always virtuous and holy – He is manifested in His holiness, His goodness, His justice, His compassion, His righteousness, His grace, His faithfulness, His truthfulness, His omnipotence, His omniscience, His omnipresence, His creativity, His beauty, His love, etc., etc., etc.!

6. Identification of Biblical Context (e.g., book’s purpose/theme):

The Book of Psalms is “sepher tehillim”, literally the “book of praises”.  But, as noted before, the context of Psalms is that God is being praised (and is glorifying Himself, so that we can learn more about Who He really is) amidst and in the aftermath of huge conflicts.

Why? The universe is at war, as is illustrated by Psalm 1 and Psalm 2, between those who revere God (the “godly”) and those who don’t (the “ungodly”).  It is wise to be godly!  It is sinfully stupid to be ungodly. The end of the ungodly is ruin and doom; the destiny of the godly is goodness. The poetic lyrics of the Psalms provide praise-songs that equip the believer for spiritual-mindedness and godly living (see Colossians 3:16). God’s great and holy deeds, which show His great and holy character, prove that He alone is worthy of worship and exaltation on earth as in Heaven.

Obviously, God’s glory is best presented in and through the Lord Jesus Christ. Accordingly, the Book of Psalms testify of Jesus (Luke 24:44), and some of the Psalms are overtly Messianic in prophetic content, e.g., Psalm 2 (which is quoted in Acts 13:33), and Psalm 22 (which is quoted in Mark 15:34 and Matthew 27:43), and in Psalm 45 (which is quoted in Hebrews 1:8), and in Psalm 102 (which is quoted in Hebrews 1:10-12).

7. Identification of Theological Context (as related to themes):

David’s “Lord” – the Lord Jesus Christ – is recognized as ascended and exalted to the throne of God, at God’s right hand, to sit there till His enemies are made into a “footstool” for Him. Quite obviously, the timeframe for this heavenly exaltation of Christ must be after His resurrection and ascension.

It is David’s Lord (i.e., the LORD, Who has chosen to give faithful mercies to David and to all who are forgiven in Christ) Who forgave David, the sinner, for David’s failings. This is the hidden-in-plain-view lesson of the almost-perfect alphabetic acrostic of Psalm 145.

As the Epistle to the Hebrews emphasizes (in chapters 5, 6, and 7) this immortal and heavenly priesthood of Christ contrasts with the mortal and earthly priesthoods of the sons of Aaron.  This distinction should not be a problem for dispensationalists, because they are routinely sensitive to the difference in roles that Christ has in relation to Israel, to the Church, and to the rest of the world.  But this distinction is often lost to those who use “replacement theology” to commingle prophecies about Israel with prophecies about the Gentile-dominated Church, as they fail to distinguish between Christ’s earthly throne in Jerusalem (which is yet future) as Israel’s King, and Christ’s heavenly throne (where He sits now, and will continue to sit till His enemies are “positioned” into His footstool) at God the Father’s right hand.

The theological importance of Christ’s present throne (and His being seated there) is emphasized in Hebrews chapters 9 and 10, as judicial proof that His self-sacrifice sufficiently satisfied the need to pay for human sins once for all.

What is our real “glory” as Adam’s children, redeemed in Christ?  What kind of creatures are we, truly, when we are at our best?  It is our great privilege to know God, and to make Him known to others:  “That, according as it is written, ‘he that glorieth, let him glory in the LORD’.” (1st Corinthians 1:31, quoting from Jeremiah 9:23-24).  Notice that Paul quoted from the prophet Jeremiah, to show what real glory is – for a child of Adam.

The fuller quotation from Jeremiah 9:23-24 reads: “Thus saith the Lord, Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his riches, but let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the Lord which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the LORD.”

It is our glory, therefore, “to understand and to know the LORD”, and to appreciate how He is a God of lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in all the earth! That is what it means to “glory in the LORD”!  What a Savior we have!  Although we fail Him (as David did), He is nonetheless faithful as our sustaining Creator, our Redeemer, Shepherding, and Advocate.

8. Secondary Verification (i.e., considering the views of others):

The intentional omission of the Hebrew letter nûn – in Psalm 145:13 – has been noticed by others (e.g., Larry Brigden, who has cited and quoted before[29]) who do not jump to the hasty conclusion that the original text was somehow bungled by Masoretic Text copyist-scribes.

9. Development of Exposition (verse-by-verse commentary):

Verses 8-9: The Lord is gracious, and full of compassion; slow to anger, and of great mercy; the Lord is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.

After objectively emphasizing God’s greatness (e.g., the glorious honor of His majesty, His wondrous works, etc.), David’s objectivity shifts somewhat to personal subjectivity – God is David’s God. Many of God’s created works display His wisdom, His power, and His creativity – such as the sun, the moon, and the stars (see Genesis 1:16-18), but David knows God in a relational way that emphasizes God’s character as the God Who is “gracious” (ḥannûn), full of “compassion” (raḥûm), and of faithful “mercy” (ḥesed).  Although God has a right to be angry with our sinful failings He is “slow to anger” (’apayîm).

David personally experienced God’s kindness, God’s compassion, and God’s faithful mercies (which Jeremiah alludes to in Lamentations 3:22-23), and so do we! – all because Christ has provided us with propitiation for our sins, redemption that liberates our souls, and reconciliation that overcomes our spiritual alienation from the life of God. How often God has a right to be angry with our selfishness, our ingratitude, our covetousness, yet He forbears – we can rejoice (Luke 10:20) that God is slow to anger and quick to restore us to the abundant life that we can only have in Him (John 10:10).

Verse 10: All thy works shall praise thee, O Lord; and thy saints shall bless thee. 

In this verse David moves from the general to the particular, from the universal to the personal. One way or another, voluntarily or involuntarily, all of God’s creation will honor Him – perhaps in mercy, perhaps in judgment, perhaps in showing His power, perhaps in showing His providential care – but all of God’s works will accomplish some kind of glorification of God.

Why? Because glorifying God means manifesting Who He is, what kind of God He is, and what kind of deeds He chooses to do – and all of His creation is ultimately His property, which He utilizes as He is revealing Himself to the sentient creatures He has chosen to create (including us!).  Yet is it only His “holy ones” (a/k/a “saints”) who can enjoy God’s glory, because all who sin and go unredeemed cannot enjoy God’s holiness and justice.

Fallen angels will learn God’s judgment but they cannot enjoy its application to their doomed souls. Likewise, unsaved humans will learn of God’s glory – His holiness, His righteousness, His wisdom, His justice – but they cannot enjoy God’s glory in their doomed destinies.  But the elect angels, as well as the redeemed of Adam’s race, can enjoy God’s glory – imperfectly in time (because we are hindered by sin in and around us) and perfectly in eternity (when sin is completely removed from Heaven and Earth by Christ).

However, the righteous angels can only observe God’s redemptive grace in Christ – only forgiven sinners (like us) can personally experience the glory of redemptively belonging to Christ as personal Redeemer (Luke 10:20; Revelation 5:9) – and can bless Him accordingly.

Verses 11-12: They shall speak of the glory of thy kingdom, and talk of thy power, to make known to the sons of men his mighty acts, and the glorious majesty of his kingdom.

As noted above, it is the high honor of God’s redeemed children “to know God and to make Him known” to others. It is our privilege to tell others how great our Creator is, how wise His providence is as He sovereignly rules His creation, and how caringly He loves those for whom Christ sacrificed.  This is part of the privilege and responsibility of being an older member of a multi-generational (extended) family – the opportunity to tell posterior generations of God is a fast-fleeting obligation to be used before it is gone.  As indicated in in fulfillment of Psalm 102:18 and 2nd Corinthians 5:17, it is God’s pleasure to create new lives – and to regenerate them, redemptively, in Christ.

For some of this, this can be improved by taking our family history more seriously – and using it to honor God in a grateful way.

This will be written for the generation to come, That a people yet to be created may praise the LORD.  (Psalm 102:18)

Shakespeare’s Hamlet considered the grave question of whether to end his earthly existence with the famous words “to be, or not to be.”

Yet more basic is the underlying issue of God’s sovereign choice to create us “to be” in the first place.

If God had not chosen to make us as His creatures, we couldn’t think, reflect, or ask any questions. Thankfully God chose otherwise and uniquely created each of us.1 Yet how much do we really enjoy knowing and appreciating God as our personal Creator?

Origins matter.1 Over 150 years ago Darwin’s “natural selection” theory usurped Genesis truth, and the ubiquitous influences of evolutionary mythology have since distracted many from valuing God as their magnificent and multi-generational Creator.2

Does Genesis guide your thinking about your personal origins, including your own family history? How was God working prior to and when He biogenetically knit you together using nuclear DNA and mitochondrial DNA blueprints? Indubitably God deserves praise for His authorship of our vast genealogical heritages (Psalm 139).

In so many details, beyond the in-the-womb procreation of our physical bodies, we owe gratitude to God for our lives (Romans 8:28). Historical events and geographical realities are ingredients that God carefully and continuously blends to make us exactly who we are.1,2

God providentially plans and engineers the details of life that lead to genealogical relationships. God twice used agricultural conditions to graft Moab’s Ruth into the Jewish family of Naomi, so that Ruth ultimately met and married Naomi’s kinsman Boaz, who became Ruth’s kinsman-redeemer (Ruth 1:1, 6). And God has used family history to fulfill biblical prophecy.3

The value of family history, if appreciated from a Genesis perspective, is truly priceless. It should be learned, treasured, and transferred as a testimony to future generations (Psalm 102:18; Proverbs 13:22a; Daniel 5:20-23).

Since the creation revival began more than 50 years ago, the creation science community has rightly emphasized origins science in general.1 Tragically, however—for at least 200 years and due largely to secularized origins science—many creation scientists have virtually ignored forensic science-qualified study of biogenetic family history, a specialized origins science applying forensic science methodology principles.2,3

Anti-Genesis attitudes have sabotaged appreciation for God’s providential workings in our multi-generational family histories. Lamentably, God’s role as our Creator—at the personal level—has often been denied, dismissed, and/or discounted by the many voices of evolutionary thinking.1,2 No wonder today’s Christians, generally speaking, live at a “poverty level” when it comes to knowing and valuing their own family histories.

Some think Mormons have a monopoly on appreciating family history. Others, ignoring forensic science’s role in clarifying biogenetic family history, think that family history is irrelevant to origins science.2,3 Both assumptions egregiously miss the mark.

It is each Christian’s duty to appreciate God’s creatorship at a personal level. Doing so includes learning and valuing personal family history because God’s creative and praiseworthy providences determine whom each one of us is “to be, or not to be.”[30]

Try to imagine just some of the providential deeds that God needed to accomplish just so you (or I) could be born the specific individual He fore-ordained you (or me) to be. Then add to that the providential workings that He orchestrated in order to provide us with the saving Gospel of Christ, so that you (or I could become a believer in Christ, with eternal life (John 3:16).

Verse 13: Thy kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and thy dominion endureth throughout all generations.

Again David is considering the multi-generational reality of God’s reign over the affairs of mankind. God’s rule was not that of a human lifespan, as David’s reign was.  Rather, God rules always, everywhere.  God’s rulership is universal, at all times and in all places.

Even those who defy God are ultimately being ruled by God, even while God gives them a limited time and space to be rebellious (before the Lake of Fire becomes their permanent destiny). As Dr. Martin Luther once said, even Satan is under God’s ultimate control – he may be the devil but he is God’s devil!  (For example, consider the early chapters of the book of Job, to see how Satan must ask permission of God, to be allowed to cause specific kinds of trouble.)

Verse 14: The Lord upholdeth all that fall, and raiseth up all those that be bowed down.

This is the focal — and most controversial — verse in Psalm 145, as this analysis has already detailed (above).

Psalm145.12-14.Verse14-in-English

The main point to notice, here (in Psalm 145:14), is that God restores His redeemed children – after they fall and fail – yet there is still something missing.  The sin is forgiven (John 1:29; 1st John 1:9), but the time wasted in sin is an opportunity lost forever.  Better to avoid sin; better to capture each opportunity to glorify God, to serve Him, and to enjoy belonging to Him.

Verses 15-16: The eyes of all wait upon thee; and thou givest them their meat in due season. Thou openest thine hand, and satisfiest the desire of every living thing.

            This verse reminds us of God’s nature sermon to Job, in chapters 38-41, especially Job 38:41, which notes that even animals depend on God for their necessary daily food.

It is God Who provides necessary food to humans and animals, even to the lowliest “creeping things” that live upon the earth.

In fact, as Acts 14:17 teaches us, God’s providential care of His creatures – which includes providing food, water, and air — is itself an immeasurably huge and unavoidably obvious proof of God’s glorious Creatorship.

Sometimes the proof that God is our Creator comes in the form of a potato, or lingonberries, or cheese, or eggs, or a codfish. Each type of food is a witness to God’s providential care. The meals consumed over a human lifetime offer a huge quantity of proof, from a huge pantry of witnesses!

God never leaves Himself without a truth witness

Food provides strong evidence of God’s wisdom and power as our Creator, as well as His goodness in providing for fallen mankind’s physical needs. In fact, the Bible teaches that the providentially programmed production of all food, anywhere and everywhere on earth, is itself a continuing proof that God is a caring Creator. The apostle Paul taught this:

And saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein: Who in times past suffered all nations to walk in their own ways. Nevertheless he left not himself without witness, in that he did good, and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness. (Acts 14:15-17, emphasis added)

Think about God’s providence and how it is displayed on earth. God has demonstrated His immeasurable glory by His many acts of providential care for His creatures, especially humans and animals. Yet some of what God provides is so commonplace that it is routinely ignored, although that ignorance cannot negate the overwhelming proof of God’s providence.

Consider just two of those providential care evidences named above by the apostle Paul: fruitful seasons and food. Both of these blessings provide an ongoing benefit for God’s favorite creature, mankind.

The apologetics of fruitful seasons

Since the Flood, God’s historic providence in providing a dependable cycle of annual seasons has been routine.

While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease. (Genesis 8:22)

If the “reawakening” of plant life during spring were to occur only once in a human’s lifetime, the wonder of it all would (and should) be recognized as an immense miracle, so majestic and clever that billions of words could not do justice to describe it.

God planned for fruitful trees to provide food for humans, generation after generation, as a long-term renewable provision that was to be considered more important than the immediate activities of any one generation, a resource to be protected even during crises such as military activities. (See Deuteronomy 20:19-20; notice that food availability for multiple generations is also planned for in Deuteronomy 22:6-7.) This reproduction-driven multi-generational provision was preprogrammed by God, with each fruit’s biogenetic reproductive capacity written within its seeds, as Genesis taught from the beginning.

And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1:11-12, emphasis added)

Thus, “fruitful seasons” are a positive proof of the providential care of our Creator.

The apologetics of food

Likewise, God’s provision of an amazing diversity of foods—around the world, in every age, in every culture, to every people group—is proof positive that God is Creator. Food is absolutely necessary to prolong our physical life.

Why? As a result of Adam’s sin, death entered the human race (Romans 5:12). God’s warning to Adam indicated a double-death penalty: “To die thou shalt die” (Genesis 2:17, which includes an infinitive-imperfect “double verb” in the Hebrew text). Sin immediately triggered a relational break between Creator and creature, because God is holy. That relational break was a spiritual death, a separation from God that Paul called being “dead in trespasses and sins” (Ephesians 2:1). Also, sin triggered an ongoing process of dying physically—what some scientists call “chemistry eventually wins out over biology”—so our human bodies die.

Before birth, even from the time of conception, our physical bodies are dying, yet the metabolic profit we gain from eating food postpones and prolongs that dying process. (If you doubt food’s necessity, try abstaining from eating for two months!)

In some humans, physical life is prolonged by food for more than a century. But, in time, the condition of mortality takes its toll and we all anticipate death, even if we eat every day.

Food only postpones the inevitable. But while it does, it is a life-sustaining fuel, an amazing and precious gift from our Creator,1 as well as a testimony to the amazingly complex and efficient world He designed, as Dr. Randy Guliuzza notes:

Plants use biological systems that harvest light energy from the sun to convert environmental water and carbon dioxide into tiny carbon/hydrogen energy units stored within them.

When people eat those energy units, the extraordinary human digestive and metabolic systems convert the work of plants into energy that is useful to people and give back water and carbon dioxide to the environment that can be used by plants.…

In this amazing process that powers the human body, nuclear fusion energy in the sun is converted and conveyed as light energy to the earth, where it is captured and converted by plants to food-stuffs, then digested by a person and metabolized to universal energy packets that can be converted to chemical, mechanical, and electrical energy as needed.

The information content behind all of this is truly staggering.

The conversion of sunlight to body energy involves all systems of the body, plus a few plant systems, which must be totally functional.

Credit belongs to the Lord Jesus Christ—the creative genius! The Lord is gracious to all people by freely giving the sun’s light energy, the vital biological systems of plants, and humans’ incredible digestive and metabolic systems.2 [Quoting Dr. Randy Guliuzza]

God has also acted in human history, in the lives of human beings, in ways that so tellingly reveal His intervention that to fail to recognize God’s providential involvement is morally and intellectually inexcusable.

No random “chance” could provide a satisfactory explanation for the results of God’s providential care, and the proof is everywhere for those with eyes to see, even in every bite we eat. No wonder we are obligated to give thanks to God for our food.3

Food helps to prove that Jesus rose from the dead

In fact, even the eyewitness proof of the Lord Jesus Christ’s bodily resurrection was accentuated by His eating solid food (such as fish and honeycomb), demonstrating that He was physically raised from the dead.4

No one—man or woman, boy or girl—who has ever eaten a meal, and benefited metabolically from doing so, can honestly say, “God gave me no witness of Himself, so how was I supposed to know He was my Creator?”5

So, the proof is in the pudding—as well as in every other form of food that God provides for us, whether potato, lingonberry, cheese, egg, or codfish.[31]

So, every meal you (or I) eat is yet another proof of God’s caring providence as our Creator!

A fitting way to personally apply these last two verses (i.e., Psalm 145:15-16) would be to eat some wonderful food – while giving thanks to God as our generous Creator-God (1st Timothy 4:3-5; 1st Corinthians 10:31), Whose gracious lovingkindness sustains us, and even restores us when we fail Him.

Hallelujah! What a Savior-God we belong to!

                     ><> JJSJ     (AD2015)

birding-chez-webel.bob-and-jjsj

Chaplain Bob Webel & JJSJ at Webel backyard, birdwatching [photograph by Marcia Webel]

BIBLE TEXTS & TRANSLATIONS USED

The 1599 Geneva Bible (White Hall, WV: Tolle Lege Press, 2008 Calvin Legacy Edition; Raymond G. Vallorani & Brandon R. Vallorani, eds.)

The 1611 King James Version (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1990 reprint edition)

The Interlinear Hebrew-English Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987; John R. Kohlenberger, III, ed.)

The New Defender’s Study Bible (Nashville: World Publishing, 2006; Henry M. Morris, editor an author of appendices).

The Scofield Study Bible, New King James Version (Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press, 2002; C. I. Scofield, orig. ed.)

Biblia Hebraica (Stuttgart, Germany: Württembergische Bibelanstalt Stuttgart, 1973, edited by Rudolph Kittel & others).

The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1999, reprint of original 1851 publication by Samuel Bagster & Sons of London).

(The “Leningrad” edition of the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible and the New American Standard Version were both accessed from the www.BibleGateway.com website. Also, the modernistic so-called “Bible translations” that are based upon the “dynamic equivalence” paraphrasing methodology, such as “The Message”, “New International Version”, and “Good News for Modern Man”, were accessed from the  www.BibleGateway.com website.)

OlafTryggvason-hears-Gospel.wood-sculpture

 SUPPLEMENTAL   BIBLIOGRAPHY

Brigden, Larry, “The Supposed Missing נ Verse in Psalm 145”, Trinitarian Bible Society Quarterly Record, Issue #602 (January-March 2013).

NOTICE:  indentations, to show the beginning and ending of quoated material, has been problematic in formatting this blogpost — so please notice that Larry Brigden is quoted several times in this blogpost (and Dr. Randy Guliuzza is quoted within a quotation) — and footnote indications are used to show where quotations conclude — hopefully,  based on advice from Lee Dusing (who is the expert on all things blog), I will continue to repair the  indented-quote function of this blogpost.

Cone, Christopher, Prolegomena on Biblical Hermeneutics and Method, 2nd ed. (Hurst, TX: Tyndale Seminary Press, 2012).

Johnson, James J. S., “The Evidence of Nothing: The Silent Witness of Evolution’s Missing Links”, Acts & Facts, 37(4)4-5 (April 2008), posted at http://www.icr.org/article/evidence-nothing/ .

Johnson, James J. S., “Our Daily Bread: How Food Proves the Providence of God”, Acts & Facts, 40(4):8-9 (April 2011), posted at www.icr.org/article/8377 .

Johnson, James J. S., “Genesis Is History, Not Hebrew Poetry: Exposing Hidden Assumptions about What Hebrew Poetry Is and Is Not”, Acts & Facts, 40(6):8-9 (June 2011), posted at http://www.icr.org/article/genesis-history-poetry-exposing-hidden/ .

Johnson, James J. S., “People Yet to Be Created”, Acts & Facts, 43(11):20 (November2014), posted at www.icr.org/article/8377 .

McGee, J. Vernon, Briefing the Bible (Pasadena, CA: Thru the Bible Books, 1984).

Morris, Henry M., editor of annotated notes and appendices, The New Defender’s Study Bible (Nashville: World Publishing, 2006).

Morris, Henry M., Treasures in the Psalms (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2001).

Pratico, Gary D., & Miles V. Van Pelt, Basics of Biblical Hebrew Grammar (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001).)

Ryrie, Charles C., Dispensationalism, rev. ed. (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 2007).

Walvoord, John F., & Roy B. Zuck, eds., The Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985).

Weingreen, Jacob, A Practical Grammar for Classical Hebrew (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979).

Wiersbe, Warren W., The Bible Exposition Commentary: An Exposition of the New Testament Comprising the Entire “BE” Series (Volume I: Matthew – Galatians; Wheaton: Victor Books, 1989).

Wigram. George V., The Englishman’s Hebrew Concordance of the Old Testament (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson reprint, 2001; orig. publ. 1874).

Young, Robert, Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson reprint, 1984; orig. publ. 1879).

Rosemaling-plate.JJSJ

FOOTNOTES

[1] For examples of more-modern English translations that retain the “almost-perfect” alphabetic acrostic version of Psalm 145, see the New King James Version of 1982, New American Standard Version (of 1963-1995), and even liberal Dan Wallace’s NET version.

[2] As an illustration of an intentional omission, this writer recalls a memory from his junior high days, when a wood shop teacher put the following on the blackboard, during December: ABCDEFGHIJKMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ. Some boys in the classroom observantly noticed “there’s no L” – which provided the shop-teacher’s seasonal meeting: NOEL!

[3] Warren W. Wiersbe, “Bad News about the Good News – Galatians 1:1-10”, The Bible Exposition Commentary: An Exposition of the New Testament Comprising the Entire “BE” Series (Volume I: Matthew – Galatians; Wheaton: Victor Books, 1989), page 682.

[4] Interestingly, the “evidence of nothing” (when there supposedly should be “something”) is a forensic principle that is relied upon in courtroom decision-making. See James J. S. Johnson, “The Evidence of Nothing:  The Silent Witness of Evolution’s Missing Links”, Acts & Facts, 37(4)4-5 (April 2008), posted at  http://www.icr.org/article/evidence-nothing/ .

[5] Luke 17:26-30.

 [6] See 1st Corinthians 10:31 & Hebrews 13:4a.

[7] Quoting Larry Brigden, “The Supposed Missing נ Verse in Psalm 145”, Trinitarian Bible Society Quarterly Record, Issue #602 (January-March 2013), page 13.

[8] Larry Brigden (cited in footnote #7, above), at page 15.

[9] Larry Brigden (cited in footnote #7, above), at page 15.

[10] Rudolph Kittel, editor, Biblia Hebraica (Stuttgart, Germany: Württembergische Bibelanstalt Stuttgart, 1973), page 1100.

[11] Larry Brigden (cited in footnote #7, above), at page 15. See, accord, The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1999, reprint of original 1851 publication by Samuel Bagster & Sons of London), at page 785.

[12] Larry Brigden (cited in footnote #7, above), at page 16.

[13] Henry M. Morris, “Introduction to the Psalms”, page 827 to the New Defender’s Study Bible.  See also Henry M. Morris, Treasures in the Psalms (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2001), 17.

[14] Morris, Treasures in the Psalms, 17.

[15] See George V. Wigram, The Englishman’s Hebrew Concordance of the Old Testament (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson reprint, 2001; orig. publ. 1874), pages 684 & 1337.  See also Robert Young, Young’s Analytical Concordance (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson reprint, 1984; orig. publ. 1879), pages 766-767.

[16] See George V. Wigram, The Englishman’s Hebrew Concordance of the Old Testament (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson reprint, 2001; orig. publ. 1874), page 1337.

[17] Morris, Treasures in the Psalms, 18.

[18] See James J. S. Johnson, “Genesis Is History, Not Hebrew Poetry: Exposing Hidden Assumptions about What Hebrew Poetry Is and Is Not”, Acts & Facts, 40(6):8-9 (June 2011), posted at http://www.icr.org/article/genesis-history-poetry-exposing-hidden/ .

[19] Quoting James J. S. Johnson, “Genesis Is History, Not Hebrew Poetry: , Acts & Facts, 40(6):8-9 (June 2011), posted at http://www.icr.org/article/genesis-history-poetry-exposing-hidden/ (footnotes omitted).

[20] This truth of God’s providence is echoed, by Paul, in Acts 14:17.

[21] Robert Young, Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson reprint, 1984; orig. publ. 1879), pages 766-767.

[22] Robert Young, Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson reprint, 1984; orig. publ. 1879), “Index-Lexicon of the Old Testament”, page 70.

[23] Robert Young, Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson reprint, 1984; orig. publ. 1879), “Index-Lexicon of the Old Testament”, page 18.

[24] Robert Young, Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson reprint, 1984; orig. publ. 1879), “Index-Lexicon of the Old Testament”, page 55.

[25] Robert Young, Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson reprint, 1984; orig. publ. 1879), “Index-Lexicon of the Old Testament”, page 53.

[26] Robert Young, Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson reprint, 1984; orig. publ. 1879), “Index-Lexicon of the Old Testament”, page 43.

[27] Robert Young, Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson reprint, 1984; orig. publ. 1879), “Index-Lexicon of the Old Testament”, page 45.

[28] See George V. Wigram, The Englishman’s Hebrew Concordance of the Old Testament (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson reprint, 2001; orig. publ. 1874), pages 366-367.

[29] Larry Brigden, “The Supposed Missing נ Verse in Psalm 145”, Trinitarian Bible Society Quarterly Record, Issue #602 (January-March 2013), pages 13-16.

[30] James J. S. Johnson, “People Yet to Be Created”, Acts & Facts, 43(11):20 (November2014), posted at www.icr.org/article/8377 .

[31] Quoting from James J. S. Johnson, “Our Daily Bread: How Food Proves the Providence of God”, Acts & Facts, 40(4):8-9 (April 2011), posted at www.icr.org/article/8377 .



Pondside-at-Webels.Ducks-on-Pond-1

JJSJ birdwatching, backyard of Chaplain Bob and Marcia Webel (St. Petersburg, Florida)


See also this Fathers’ Day message: http://bcctampa.sermon.net/main/main/21403928 .

NST Althing: Meeting with Old & New Friends

 

NST-logo-with-flag

A man that hath friends must shew himself friendly: and there is a friend that sticketh closer than a brother.   (Proverbs 18:24)

Some friends “stick closer” than siblings, especially if siblings live far apart.

Over the past 2 decades, due to active membership in the Norwegian Society of Texas, a family history-promoting organization that has chapters in various pars of the Lone Star State  (see  https://www.norwegiansocietyoftexas.org/ ), my wife and I have experienced the truth of Proverbs 18:24.

The semiannual meeting of the Norwegian Society of Texas, called the “Althing” (named for the famous annual national assembly of Iceland), transpired last Saturday, in Clifton, a rural Texas-hill-country town (nicknamed the “Norwegian capital of Texas”).  While attending the Althing, I composed, and later presented, this limerick:

ANOTHER  ALTHING  IN  CLIFTON,  FOR  THE  NORWEGIAN  SOCIETY  OF  TEXAS     3-30-AD2019

Norwegians at Clifton did meet,

In misty rain, not snow or sleet;

   Time to plan the next year,

   Recall times of good cheer —

Old friends convene, new ones greet.

[NOTE: the rosemåling (above) mantel was painted by Norwegian native Mimi Fossum; this artwork is displayed in the historic Ringness House of Bosque County, Texas.]


 

 

 

HAVE YOU THANKED GOD FOR MUSSELS LATELY?

HAVE YOU  THANKED  GOD  FOR  MUSSELS  LATELY?

James J. S. Johnson, JD, ThD, MSGeog, CNHG

oysters-with-mussels.va-inst-o-mar-sci

Hooked Mussels attached to Oysters, Chesapeake Bay oyster-reef
(Chris Judy / Maryland Dep’t of Natural Resources photo)

And it shall come to pass, that everything that lives, which moves, wherever the rivers shall go, shall live; and there shall be a very great multitude of fish, because these waters shall go there, for they shall be healed; and everything shall live where the river goes.   (Ezekiel 47:9)

Oysters are known to be estuarial ecosystem “heroes”, for a lot of reasons.  But don’t be surprised if other bivalves are helping, as we shall see below.

oyster-bar-chesapeake.univmd-alicejanelippson

OYSTER BAR in the Chesapeake Bay   (Univ. of Md. / Alice Jane Lippson)

Healthy rivers (and estuaries) are a good thing.  But sometimes a “hero” is needed, to clean up unhealthy rivers, or to “keep clean” rivers that will otherwise go bad.

Tough “clean-up” jobs, as well as “keep-it-clean” maintenance jobs, are often accomplished by unsung heroes. For example, the tough job of cleaning up water quality (and the job of maintaining water quality) in coastal wetlands requires some helpful muscles, such as those of the Chesapeake Bay’s mussels!  So, shouldn’t such helpful bivalves be given due credit, for what they do?

Mussels, once mostly ignored, are now being touted for their ability to clean streams much like oysters do for the Bay. Oysters are in many ways the restoration darlings of the Chesapeake Bay cleanup effort. Touted for multiple benefits — as edible, water-filtering moneymakers — oysters attract both enthusiasm and funding to promote their recovery.

But the popularity of oysters often overshadows the water-cleansing role of other filter feeders such as mussels. A growing group of mussel advocates think it’s high time that the bivalves share the spotlight as clean-water workhorses that can carry the message farther upstream.

 Projects to propagate mussels and restore them to waterways where they once thrived are cropping up in parts of Virginia, Maryland, Delaware and Pennsylvania as researchers working on them in various states begin to join efforts. The goal is to return some of the diversity once found in these waterways — mussel by mussel — so they can filter, feed, clean and otherwise serve the local ecosystem.

[Quoting Whitney Pipkin, “Freshwater bivalves flexing their muscles as water filterers”, CHESAPEAKE BAY JOURNAL, 28(7):1 (October 2018).]

mussels.encycl-britannica

MUSSELS   (Encyclopedia Britannica photo)

So, what service do mussels provide, such as the mussels (e.g., “Hooked Mussel“, a/k/a “Bent Mussel”:  Ischadium recurvum) which dwell in Chesapeake Bay watershed streams and estuarial wetlands?

Research in Chesapeake Bay shows that the mussels that typically colonize a restored oyster reef can more than double the reef’s overall filtration capacity. Filtering plankton helps improve water quality because these tiny drifting organisms thrive on the excess nitrogen and other nutrients that humans release into the Bay and its tributaries through farming, wastewater outflow, and the burning of fossil fuels. …

Restoring oysters — and their ability to filter large volumes of water — is widely seen as a key way to improve the health of Chesapeake Bay. New research makes this calculus even more appealing, showing that the mussels that typically colonize the nooks and crannies of a restored oyster reef can more than double its overall filtration capacity.

The study — by researchers at the University of Maryland, the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, and the Virginia Institute of Marine Science — appears as the cover story in the most recent issue of Restoration Ecology [i.e., Keryn B. Gedan, Lisa Kellogg, & Denise L. Breitburg, Accounting for Multiple Foundation Species in Oyster Reef Restoration Benefits, Restoration Ecology, 22(4):517 (May 2014), DOI: 10.1111/rec.12107 ]

“Many efforts to restore coastal habitat focus on planting just one species, such as oysters, mangroves, or seagrass,” says [University of Maryland]’s Keryn Gedan, the study’s lead author. “However, our research shows that the positive effects of diverse ecosystems can be much greater. In the case of oyster reefs, commonly associated species such as mussels may multiply the water quality benefits of restoration by filtering more and different portions of the plankton.”

“Estimates of the ecosystem services provided by a restoration project are used to justify, prioritize, and evaluate such projects,” adds [Virginia Institute of Marine Science] scientist Lisa Kellogg. “By quantifying the significant role that mussels can play in filtration within an oyster-reef habitat, our work shows that the ‘return on investment’ for oyster-reef restoration is potentially much higher than commonly thought.”

Filtering plankton helps improve water quality [and thus functions as what some ecologists call an “ecosystem engineer”, but really God is the providential-programmer Bioengineer, so the bivalves are more like programmed “tools” or “employees” of the divine Engineer  —  JJSJ comment] because these tiny drifting organisms thrive on the excess nitrogen and other nutrients that humans release into the Bay and its tributaries through farming, wastewater outflow, and the burning of fossil fuels.

“Filtering plankton from the water is the first step towards removing nutrients,” says Kellogg. “Although some will be returned to the water column, a significant portion will be removed from the system.” Removing plankton also has more direct benefits. Left unchecked, plankton can form dense blooms that shade other aquatic plants such as seagrass, and can lead to low-oxygen “dead zones” when they die, sink, and decay.

The research team, which also included SERC’s Denise Breitburg, based their findings on a combination of laboratory experiments and computer modeling. In the lab, they added phytoplankton of different size classes to tanks containing eastern oysters (Crassostrea virginica) or hooked mussels (Ischadium recurvum), then measured the animals’ filtration rates at different temperatures. They then incorporated these measured rates into a simple model and used that to simulate overall filtration for three different restoration scenarios in Harris Creek, Maryland, one of the East Coast’s largest oyster-reef restoration sites.

Kellogg’s main contribution to the paper was data on the relative abundance of oysters, mussels, and other organisms inhabiting restored oyster reefs collected during her time as a post-doctoral researcher at Maryland’s Horn Point Lab. These data, which showed that the biomass of mussels on a restored reef can equal or exceed that of the oysters, were used as baselines for the model projections.

The results of that modeling were clear. “On average,” says Gedan, “adding filtration by hooked mussels into our model increased the filtration capacity of the reef by more than two-fold.”

Hooked mussels were also twice as effective as oysters at filtering picoplankton,” says Breitburg.

Picoplankton are the smallest category of marine plankton, ranging from about 1.5 to 3 microns (a human red blood cell is about 5 microns across). Picoplankton are particularly abundant in Chesapeake Bay during summer, with an earlier study from the York River showing they can make up nearly 15% of phytoplankton “biomass” during the warmer months.

“Some have suggested that oyster reef restoration will be less effective than expected in controlling phytoplankton populations because of oysters’ inability to filter picoplankton,” says Kellogg. “Our discoveries with mussels lessen that concern.”

“The mussels’ ability to filter the picoplankton indicates that they fill a distinct ecological niche,” adds Gedan. “Accounting for both oyster and mussel filtration, large-scale restoration projects like those going on in Chesapeake Bay could significantly control phytoplankton, especially during the summer months, when animals filter the most.”

The bottom line, says Gedan, is that “estimates of the ecosystem services provided by just the oysters on an oyster reef may vastly underrepresent the reefs’ overall contribution. Because oyster reefs also contain many other filter-feeding species, they will likely benefit water quality much more than previous modeling efforts suggest.” Kellogg is now taking this line of research further, studying how another common oyster-reef inhabitant — an organism called a tunicate — might also contribute to gains in water quality. Tunicates, fleshy animals also known as sea squirts, filter plankton and other particles from the water similarly to oysters and mussels.

[Quoting Virginia Institute of Marine Science, “Study Puts Some Mussels into Chesapeake Bay Restoration”, 9-8-AD2014, at ScienceDaily.com posted at  https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/09/140908121538.htm .]

oysters-with-mussels.va-inst-o-mar-sci

Hooked Mussels attached to Oysters, Chesapeake Bay oyster-reef
(Chris Judy / Maryland Dep’t of Natural Resources photo)

Summarized in technical ecology lingo, the researchers abstract their findings on mussel filter-cleaning as follows:

Many coastal habitat restoration projects are focused on restoring the population of a single foundation species to recover an entire ecological community. Estimates of the ecosystem services provided by the restoration project are used to justify, prioritize, and evaluate such projects. However, estimates of ecosystem services provided by a single species may vastly under‐represent true provisioning, as we demonstrate here with an example of oyster reefs, often restored to improve estuarine water quality.

In the brackish Chesapeake Bay, the hooked mussel Ischadium recurvum can have greater abundance and biomass than the focal restoration species, the eastern oyster Crassostrea virginica. We measured the temperature‐dependent phytoplankton clearance rates of both bivalves and their filtration efficiency on three size classes of phytoplankton to parameterize an annual model of oyster reef filtration, with and without hooked mussels, for monitored oyster reefs and restoration scenarios in the eastern Chesapeake Bay.

The inclusion of filtration by hooked mussels increased the filtration capacity of the habitat greater than 2fold. Hooked mussels were also twice as effective as oysters at filtering picoplankton (1.5–3 µm), indicating that they fill a distinct ecological niche by controlling phytoplankton in this size class, which makes up a significant proportion of the phytoplankton load in summer.

When mussel and oyster filtration are accounted for in this, albeit simplistic, model, restoration of oyster reefs in a tributary scale restoration is predicted to control 100% of phytoplankton during the summer months.

[Quoting Keryn B. Gedan, Lisa Kellogg, & Denise L. Breitburg, Accounting for Multiple Foundation Species in Oyster Reef Restoration Benefits, Restoration Ecology, 22(4):517 (May 2014), DOI: 10.1111/rec.12107 ]

Wow! Good for the Eastern Oysters, for their work in filter-cleaning Chesapeake Bay estuarial picoplankton, yet compliments also to the Hooked Mussels for their respective contributions to the clean-up work!  (This illustrates good teamwork!)

But it’s not just the brackish waters of Chesapeake Bay wetlands that host mussels. (Thus, there are other waters that benefit from mussel cleaning.)  In fact, mussels often thrive in riverine freshwater habitats other than those which limnologists would classify as “coastal wetlands”.

texasfreshwatermussel-lifecycle.tpwd

Texas Freshwater Mussel life cycle   (Texas Parks & Wildlife Dep’t image)

In Texas, for example, freshwater mussels are both plentiful and diverse, living in both lotic (running) and lentic (standing) bodies of water.

Freshwater mussels may inhabit a variety of water-body types including large and small rivers and streams, lakes, ponds, canals, and reservoirs. More stable habitats may have larger and more diverse populations than do smaller and less stable waters.  Some species tolerate a wide variety of conditions [e.g., various bottom types, currents, water depths, water pH and other chemistry factors, water clarity, amount of sunlight, turbidity, aquatic vegetation, percentage of dissolved oxygen saturation, water temperature, biotic community make-up, etc.], but others may be more specific.  Certain mussels may require moderate to swiftly flowing waters, and typically fail to survive in lakes or impoundments.

Headwater spring pools and streams in Texas Hill Country typically harbor few if any mussels largely because the cool, clear waters lack sufficient phytoplankton and other foods needed to support mussel populations. A few species like pondhorns (Uniomerus spp.) occur in temporary ponds and periodically-dry portions of intermittent streams by burrowing into the substrate during dewatering.

[Quoting Robert G. Howells, Raymond W. Neck, & Harold D. Murray, FRESHWATER MUSSELS OF TEXAS (Texas Parks & Wildlife Department, Inland Fisheries Division, 1996), page 14.]

In Texas, for instance, freshwater mussels —  especially dozens of varieties of unionid mussels (freshwater-dwelling mollusk bivalves a/k/a “naiads”)  —  have flourished for centuries in the enormously biodiverse bayou-waters of Caddo Lake, Texas’ sole “natural lake” (which borders Louisiana).

However, freshwater mussels have also been studied in these major river systems of the Lone Star State:

Canadian River (only slim pickings in these Panhandle-traversing waters); Red River (serving as the Texas-Oklahoma border to Arkansas, swelling at the artificially expanded Lake Texoma, favoring mussel populations including unionids such as pondshell, pondhorn, and yellow sandshell, as well as some clams);

Sulphur River (a Red River tributary, once intensively fished for mussels);

Big Cypress Bayou (a tributary of Caddo Lake, once fished for mussel pearls);

Sabine River (flowing to Texas’ border with Louisiana, then into the Gulf of Mexico, once intensively fished for mussels);

Neches River, including its tributary Angelina River (flowing through Texas piney woodlands, with no recent major harvesting of mussels);

Trinity River, flowing into Trinity Bay (pollution has been a historic problem, killing off mussel populations, though some unionids are observed within Lake Lewisville, an artificially formed reservoir-tributary of the Trinity River drainage system);

San Jacinto River (flowing north of Houston, draining into Trinity Bay, hosting washboard and threeridge mussels – as evidence by mussels stranded in dewatered areas during droughts);

Brazos River (Texas’ longest river between the Red River and the Rio Grande, hosting unionids in its tributary Navasota River);

Colorado River (containing unionid mussels in several of its tributaries);

Lavaca River (no significant mussels observed);

Guadalupe River, with its primary tributary San Antonio River, plus other tributaries including Blanco River and San Marcos River (sporadically hosting washboards and other river mussels);

Nueces River (flowing into Nueces Bay, with muddier tributaries hosting some mussels); and the Rio Grande, including its tributary Pecos River (separating Texas from Mexico, and variously hosting some unionid mussels).

[For specific biogeography details, see Howells, Neck, & Murray, FRESHWATER MUSSELS OF TEXAS, pages 29-32.]

The water-filtering benefits of wetland mussels are worthy of appreciation; however, not every impact of mussels is advantageous, as is illustrated by the invasive (and pervasive) nuisance known as the non-unionid Zebra Mussel (Dreissena polymorpha).  The miniscule Zebra Mussel is not covered as a topic, here, except to notice that it has caused a lot of disturbing and non-miniscule impacts in many freshwater lakes of America and Europe, from one water-body to another, due to over-land transport as attachments to the hulls of recreational boats.  [Regarding Zebra Mussel nuisance impacts, see Winfried Lampert & Ulrich Sommer, LIMNOECOLOGY: THE ECOLOGY OF LAKES AND STREAMS, 2nd ed. (Oxford University Press, 2010), pages 123 & 224-225.]

Freshwater mussels come in all shapes and sizes, with nicknames that indicate their unique forms or textures, such as snuffbox, spectacle-case, pimple-back and pistol-grip. Most live in rivers or streams, some others in lakes and ponds, but all rely on a current of water to provide phytoplankton and bacteria that they filter-feed from the water. Some species can live to be more than 100 years old. They also have a complex life cycle that makes them difficult — but not impossible — to reproduce in hatcheries. Most need a fish to act as a host as they start their life: The larvae find shelter and grow in fish gills until they can navigate the waters on their own. Some mussels create lures to draw in their preferred host, and some clamp onto the fish with trap-like mouths. If the fish species preferred by a certain mussel disappears, the mussel does, too.

[Quoting Whitney Pipkin, “Freshwater bivalves flexing their muscles as water filterers”, CHESAPEAKE BAY JOURNAL, 28(7):1,17 (October 2018).]

In order to analyze the benefits of coastal wetland mussels, such as those which are quietly filter-cleaning wetland waters within the Chesapeake Bay drainage watershed, someone needs to carefully study them.

But, since most of these mollusks are not commercially exploited, who will pay for the scientific research on these humble bivalves?

Other parts of the country, such as the Tennessee River system and Delaware Bay, have seen the fruit that comes from investing in mussel propagation and research. Meanwhile, mussels have often fallen below the radar of Chesapeake Bay restoration efforts. That may be because freshwater mussels, unlike oysters or some saltwater mussels, don’t end up on human plates.

Research and restoration funding is harder to come by, even though three-quarters of freshwater mussel species are considered to be at some level of impairment. The money often comes in an off-and-on fashion from mitigation payments for environmental disasters and permit renewals, and partners in the Chesapeake Bay restoration effort community have not focused their resources on mussels. … Many of the mussel advocates who gathered along the James River in July first interacted with the mollusks outside of the Chesapeake Bay watershed — in the Clinch River, which rises in the southwest corner of Virginia and flows into Tennessee. The Clinch River is home to most of Virginia’s 81 mussel species, more than a third of which are endangered. The diversity of mussels found there has made the river a hotspot for research nationally. …

The Harrison Lake facility [i.e., the Harrison Lake National Fish Hatchery, located along the James River south of Richmond, Virginia – an activity of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior], built in the 1930s to support recreational fisheries, now has the capacity to grow tens of millions of mussels. Over the last decade, the facility transitioned from a focus on migratory fish species such as American shad to also growing tiny glochidia, the name for larval-stage mussels, into young mollusks.

When Dominion’s Bremo Power Station renewed its water discharge permit, the hatchery got more than a half-million dollars from the deal after a threatened mussel was found to be impacted by its discharge. When DuPont had to pay $42 million to settle a case over mercury contamination of the South River, the hatchery got $4 million. The coal ash spill in the Dan River in 2014 brought in additional funds to help replenish mussel species that might have been lost.

[Quoting Whitney Pipkin, “Freshwater bivalves flexing their muscles as water filterers”, CHESAPEAKE BAY JOURNAL, 28(7):1,17 (October 2018).]

harrisonlake-hatchery-sign.usfws

The Harrison Lake National Fish Hatchery employs a staff of five – and their aquaculture efforts are producing results.

The hatchery team used to release tiny mussels into portions of the James watershed and hope for the best. Now, the staff has the technology to grow them “almost indefinitely” at the facility to a large enough size that they have much better survival rates in the wild. The center propagates the mussels by collecting female mussels that already have larvae in their gills, which the staff either extracts with a needle (to mimic a fish rubbing against it) or allows the mussel to release. Placed into tanks with their host fish, the larvae will attach to the fish before dropping off two to four weeks later to continue feeding and growing in a series of tanks. The lab is also working on in vitro fertilization for mussel species whose host fish is not known.

[Quoting Whitney Pipkin, “Freshwater bivalves flexing their muscles as water filterers”, CHESAPEAKE BAY JOURNAL, 28(7):1,17 (October 2018).]

In order to track progress, regarding the future growth and activities of mussels released to “the wild”, the hatchery uses a monitoring system that is analogous to bird-banding  —  the hatchery laser-etches identifying code markings onto the shell of a mussel, before release.  Also, some rare mussels receive special tagging.

At the hatchery, in a squat building paid for by the Bremo mitigation funds, biological science technician Bryce Maynard demonstrated methods used to tag and track the progress of mussels grown here before being launched into wild waters. He flipped the switch on a laser engraver that can carve numbers into several rows of mussels at a time, leaving a burnt-hair smell in the air and marking thousands of mussels a day for future tracking. Among the hatchery mussels are rare species such as the James spinymussel, which was once abundant in the James River upstream of Richmond but disappeared from most of its range by the late 1980s. The hatchery-raised spinymussels are marked with tags sealed in place with dental cement. The tags can be located later with a beeping detector but are costlier than other tracking methods.

[Quoting Whitney Pipkin, “Freshwater bivalves flexing their muscles as water filterers”, CHESAPEAKE BAY JOURNAL, 28(7):1,17 (October 2018).]

So what is the main benefit expected from these costly investment? Besides overall enhancing of the coastal wetland ecosystems, water filtering is expected, since that is what mussels are famous for.

Every mussel that finds its way into the watershed and survives could help filter about 10 liters of water per day, said Danielle Kreeger, senior science director at the Partnership for the Delaware Estuary, where she’s become an advocate for the potential of what she calls the #mightymussel.  “Pound for pound, freshwater mussels are not slouches,” she said  …  “To me, every mussel is precious, and we need to protect them.”  Kreeger, in the coming months, will be completing a review of studies on the ability of such bivalves to enhance water quality, which she hopes will shore up the amount of data available about mussels’ benefits.

[Quoting Whitney Pipkin, “Freshwater bivalves flexing their muscles as water filterers”, CHESAPEAKE BAY JOURNAL, 28(7):1,17 (October 2018).]

To be clear, the Harrison Lake National Fish Hatchery is not limited to hatching mussels for the Chesapeake Bay’s tributary waters.

In fact, the USF&W operation there is, as one would expect, focused largely on piscatorial aquaculture, i.e., hatching fish, especially American Shad, as well as some alewife, blueback herring, hickory shad, and striped bass. [See “Harrison Lake national Fish Hatchery”, https://www.fws.gov/harrisonlake/ summary by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.]

But for now, the take-away lesson is an appreciation for mussels: they are a lot more important than most of us think they are.

harrison-hatchery-fish-hosts-with-mussel-larvae.usfws

Harrison Lake Nat’l Fish Hatchery: fish hosts carrying mussel larvae    (B. Davis / USF&WS photo)

But why are they, as Dr. Kreeger says, “precious”? Because God created them  —  it was God Who gave Chesapeake Bay mussels, as well as Texas riverine mussels, their intrinsic value.  As God’s creatures they display His workmanship – God’s creative bioengineering is exhibited (“plainly seen”) in all animals, including humble mussels.

Accordingly, as some of the many (albeit small and usually unseen) creatures whom God chose to create (and to “fill” diverse wetland habitats), estuarial mussels deserve due credit, for doing what God has programmed them to do, including filter-cleaning wetland waters. (For more on how OYSTERS can help restore coastal wetland ecosystems, see https://bibleworldadventures.com/2017/07/07/concrete-proof-that-oysters-are-resourceful-homesteaders-fitted-to-fill-diverse-habitats/ . )

hooked-mussels-on-rock-substrate.chesapeakebayprogram

HOOKED MUSSELS on rock substrate  (Chesapeake Bay Program photo)

So, good for the mussels!  Good for the water supply!  And that’s all good for us!   —  and therefore, primarily, we should give glory unto God, because God is due credit for providentially making estuarial (and riverine) mussels what they are and do.

><> JJSJ  profjjsj@aol.com



Dr. James J. S. Johnson freely admits that his appreciation for mussels did not begin with learning about how they contribute to filter-cleaning estuarial waters, but rather from his eating lots of tasty blue mussels when visiting New England.   [An earlier version of this blogpost article appeared on Bibleworld Adventures blog, November 12th AD2018.]


 

 

Volksdeutsche by the Dozen, Part 8 (of 8): finally, from Europe to America!

 Volksdeutsche by the Dozen, Part Eight:   Refugees in Austria, Fleeing Post-WWII Europe for America   —   The Jakob & Katarina Webel Family Journey to a New Home

Dr. James J. S. Johnson

Hear my prayer, O Lord, and give ear unto my cry; hold not Thy peace at my tears: for I am a stranger with Thee, and a sojourner, as all my fathers were.   (Psalm 39:12)

But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly; therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, because He hath prepared for them a city.   (Hebrews 11:16)

For our citizenship is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ.   (Philippians 3:20)

statue-of-liberty.ad1951-closeup

[This is the final episode in this ongoing Webel family series  —  earlier parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7a, and 7b appear elsewhere on this blog.]


In this eighth (and final) episode of the “Volksdeutsche by the Dozen” family history series, the ethnic-German family of Jakob and Katarina Webel, after evacuating from their former home in (what is today) Croatia, and having traveled through Germany, as a refugee family, during the last months of World War II, – plus sojourning as farmers for ~5 years (AD1945-AD1950) in Donnersdorf Au (Austria), and thereafter in Graz (Austria), they hoped and planned (e.g., in Salzburg, Austria) for a new home in Ohio, near the sister of Mr. Jakob Webel.

Regarding little Robert Webel’s fame in Donnersdorf Au (Austria), a local recalls his unique toddler personality – 61 years later!  [See 14:46 (of 19.55) in the youtube posted at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSsZea7Vhww .]

Webel-family-in-Austria.circa-AD1946.png

For a YouTube mini-documentary of the Webel years in Donnersdorf Au, Austria, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sIo9_5tmEM , titledJakob & Katharina Webel history – Donnersdorf Au, Austria # 1”. This video footage features Elisabeth Webel Yovichin, her daughter Kristy Yovichin Steiner, her son David Yovichin, and David’s wife Sandy Folia Yovichin (i.e., Elisabeth Webel Yovichin’s daughter-in-law).  This 17-minute-long video-recorded visit to Donnerdorf Au occurred in May of AD2010. (In the video Elisabeth Webel Yovichin mentioned that her father (Jakob Webel) dies in AD1989, and that her mother (Katarina Webel) dies in AD2002.

This family history is continued in “Jakob & Katharina Webel history – Donnersdorf Au, Austria # 2”, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSsZea7Vhww . See also Bad Radkersburg [Austria] – Mom’s School”, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qa6Q-2QAFQE  and “Jakob & Katharina Webel history – Graz, Austria”, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdghufYbLvU .

Webel-family-pose.AD1951

Jakob & Katarina Webel family, AD1951: “Volksdeutsche by the Dozen”

A related video episode reports on the Webel family’s sojourning time in Germany, as refugees, titled “Jakob & Katharina Webel history – Obernzell & Winzer, Germany” [where a flour mill was located], at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnTM3Sb1Ve8 .

For a quick slide-show overview of the Webel family’s refugee years in Europe, see David Yovichin’s “Jakob & Katharina Webel history – Europe (with Mom [Elisabeth Webel] Yovichin) – Slideshow”, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmXVzrMqC2A .

This 11-minute YouTube mini-documentary (accompanied by music that aptly fits the providential history depicted by the video footage “slides”) provides highlights from the entire series of video episodes noted here, with helpful geography indicators from time to time.

More related Webel family video episodes (by David Yovichin) include:

“Jakob & Katharina Webel history – Vinkovci, Croatia”, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGbI76ODOAo;

“Jakob & Katharina Webel history – Marinci, Croatia # 1”  at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GM9dHiE_URI

followed by https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fzkEk5tvcA “Jakob & Katharina Webel history – Marinci, Croatia # 2”, –

followed by “Jakob & Katharina Webel history – Marinci, Croatia # 3”, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlvlf7Ob20k  —

followed by “Jakob & Katharina Webel history – Marinci, Croatia # 4”, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GrQooRzHCQ  –

followed by “Jakob & Katharina Webel history – Marinci, Croatia # 5”, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVjvoBPbOug .  


[ CHRONOLOGY CORRIGENDUM NOTE: In the interview excerpt quoted below, the interviewing daughter is identified as a Webel girl born during April of AD1949. However, in earlier episodes of this series,[1] I have reported the interviewing daughter as Rosie Webel, since she is the one who actually produced (i.e., authored) the interview as a family history. But the actual interview questions – at least those appearing on page 163 cannot have been asked by Rosalie Webel, the ultimate author/producer of the Webel family record (“FROM VINKOVCI TO MEDINA”), because Rosie is reported as 6 years old (see newspaper photo and caption, above) during early AD1951, so she would have been born about 4 years before the daughter whose questions are recorded on page 163. However, Katherina (shown in Mr. Jakob Webel’s arms, in the above-shown newspaper photograph, is then reported as age “2”. Accordingly, although the arithmetic is not a precise fit (because a child born during April AD1949 would be almost-but-not-yet “2” years old, as of March 19th of AD1951), it appears that the interviewing daughter, who is referred to on page 163, must be Katherina (a/k/a “Katie” – see also pages 156, 162, 168-169), since she was born during early AD1949. This correction should be imputed to prior episodes that apparently err when indicating Rosie as the interviewing daughter. ]


How can the Webel family survive, as refugees, outside their native Yugoslavia? What about food, shelter, hygiene, and some kind of stable future for family living? For immediate survival, as refugees, what can they do, as they plan for a permanent solution to the problem of being forced to escape their homeland (and earlier life as merchants there)?  What must the “new normal” be, until a permanent home can be established, somewhere?  Where to live, now?  Where to live, later?

And how can a successful transition be made to eventually settle in a new homeland with a new home, where they can live according to their faith and values, as ethnic-German “Nazarene” Anabaptists? None of this will be easy!

[This interview quotes from pages 172-183 of From Vinkovci to Medina.]

*          *          *          *          *          *          *          *          *

Webel-dozen-Austria.top-halfWebel-dozen-Austria.bottom-half

DAUGHTER:   When did you leave [Donnersdorf Au, Austria] then in 1950 and why did you leave?

 MOM:   No money coming in, they don’t pay anything, and we had the off season.

DAD:   There was something else. And when we was there, now, in the beginning, now we are kind of settled for a while, not for permanent, that is such a, just a settle-

 DAUGHTER:   Temporary.

DAD: Just until we can go home, and then start being organized, the believers from America and go Switzerland, looking for the believers, from  Yugoslavia and Hungary, from everywhere so the refuge. And they made known through the court through the wherever, everyone should write, report himself. Not you have to but everyone to find each other. And before we get even there, I was looking for believers and couldn’t know the believers. Then Graz is capital city from that province and I wrote to the newspaper (the farmer receive newspaper) so I brought newspaper to make an ad and … something in that effect, I look for connection with the believer, we call it Nazarene over there, from Yugoslavia, and from Hungary. And my full name and address, and we get letters from everywhere–I am from here, I am from here, and I am from here, even from unbeliever, do you know for my brother, do you know for that and for that. One lady had a big flour mill for husband and wife in the town where we are, and their sister was a member, not she, and the sister moved to Argentina in 1920… only,  no later, about [19]25. And we wrote a letter, could I tell her the address for her sister.

 MOM:   You are the Webel from Vinkovci? That’s what she said.

DAD:   Then I wrote her, yes I am that Webel from Vinkovci and I do not know the address from your sister, but in the same time in Argentina, I got a sister who is a member too and they go to the same church. I could give you the address for my sister and then you could get a connection with your sister and so I did.

 MOM:   They moved there.

DAD:   And we visited even them, not so close, but we visit them and it we took them cabbage.

 MOM:   This was something for them.

DAD:   They had a daughter-in-law, she was expecting, and she said would give her what could she give for a …

MOM:   For a piece of sausage, just a piece of sausage like homemade sausage, she would give anything. They was rich people.

DAD:   At home. And we came there to visit them and …

 MOM:   Sausage.

DAD:   Sausage.

 MOM:   Well, we thought everybody’s so good.

DAD:   We had that sausage from the home till we got there to that farmer. Not, you would think, you could not think we had a 1,000 pound. We had a bag full, maybe 20 pound sausage at most, and maybe 2 piece, maybe 4 sticks ham, and maybe 2 piece from the sides of a bacon.

 MOM:   And the most we eat it already,

 DAD:   But we eat little bit, you spend little bit.

 MOM:   So we sold some,

DAD:   That shrink. But we still had it when we came there.

 MOM:   We trade so many things.

DAD:   But that we need a community.

 DAUGHTER:   Now get back to why you decided to leave besides the fact that you were getting a hold of believers.

DAD:   We decide to leave because we were tired to settle down. But we got then connection with the believers too, we wrote to Switzerland and … , and then we find connection, then Danny Spangler was a Salzburg. Salzburg is American part of Austria and Steiermark [“Steiermark” is the German name for Steyr (Austria), which is also known as “Styria”] is English part of Austria. And we are close to the Yugoslav border and nobody could go in that part close to the border except he get special permission and-

 MOM:   Same as Communist.

DAD:   So when we find through Yugoslavia somehow for Danny where he is, then we sent to him a bag a box, apples with the railroad, a box, maybe like crate now, maybe 20, 25 pound, and he was hungry for everything.

 MOM:   He was almost starving to death. He was on death already. No eat, he cannot.

DAD:   We used to say we Americans, Americans are good, they are good like everybody else. Danny Spangler, he is not a man who likes to talk and he just once said that. He was a prisoner in the war by American. On the field, fenced in, and here stands a post on a high place, with a machine gun and there and fenced in. You eat, became that shape and that people was with that soldier, they eat the grass, pick up that grass is good and that grass is good, and that root pick out.

 MOM:   That root’s good, that was not even roots anymore.

DAD:   And they went under the fence to beg and to steal and to beg. And Danny was not a man to go to beg or to steal, and he was there to die, from hunger.

 DAUGHTER:   They didn’t feed him? The Americans didn’t feed him?

DAD:   Yes, they did.

MOM:   But dry corn, little cans…

DAD:   Once in a while. like they do the Chinas, like they do the Russia, like they do everybody.

 DAUGHTER:   Off in the war zone.

DAD:   It is war time. First, it’s hard to deliver to the soldier, not to the prisoners of war, but he was dying. Then came one of his buddies, everybody, more or less, especially in the army, in the need, everybody who is close to him. One of his buddies went out there and stole or dig out potato piece, what’s ever, and came, then he could eat. Not be alone, no. Eat. And he forced it in his mouth and so he-

 MOM:   Few crumbs bread, a few crumbs bread, and-

DAD:   So he eat a little bit and see, he came to life. He was that far exhausted, even nothing just.

 DAUGHTER:   Was Dan a Christian at that point?

DAD:   No. No.

 DAUGHTER:   At that point, no.

DAD:   He was raised a Christian.

 DAUGHTER:   And isn’t Karl and Danny brothers? Karl and Dan are brothers?

 MOM:   Yes.

 DAUGHTER:   And Karl is older?

DAD:   No. Danny is older.

 DAUGHTER:   Karl is younger?

DAD:   We like to call ourselves Christians and we are, but there are many, many people in the world who do not call themselves Christians like we do,  but live in a God fearing land. The Bible says if you are Jews and your called, you are proud because you are Jews, you have a reason to be proud because your fathers are given the law and so minister that, but that heathen, that man who have never heard from God, he honors God by nature, and he will condemn you who are called Jews, something to that, and the same thing is in us Christians. We heard today a very good sermon, Art Yarhouse, He was here. And he said, not the same word, when what they do. If we haven’t the same attitude as belong to a Christian, but I would add, I would add to it. Jesus said, forgive them but we need to know we need forgiveness. How often have we grieved our neighbor, our Heavenly Father seems even farther, even this is nothing, this is nothing.

 DAUGHTER:   Okay, you sent Dan a crate of apples?

DAD:   A crate of apples and he eat it, and he, when we get permission, he give to us.

 DAUGHTER:   Oh, the Americans granted him permission.

 MOM:   This whole crate was not long, not even a week, he had to eat.

DAD:   Then he give to us and he lived with us. He was with us.

 DAUGHTER:   In this farm.

 MOM:   Yah, in this farm.

DAD:   And then he was a tailor, he found work as a tailor in the town.

 DAUGHTER:   At Donnersdorf?

DAD:   No. No. Not in Donnersdorf of the AlberRhine.

 MOM:   AlberRhine.

DAD:   That was little bit village a little bit bigger and he was work there and came every day home and sleep by us and live by us. In the kitchen we had a big table and they open up, it was a bed, and he and the.

 MOM:   We don’t open this table for a bed! And behind the table was this bed always. They was all sleeping on this bed, children when we was there. Over there was sleeping Reini and Dan. This was all we had.

 DAUGHTER:   Yeah, I know what it is.

DAD:   We all others slept in that room, just we cut that bed that had so we had only 2 beds, 4×4, so we could but… we had 6 straw but we had the blankets.

 MOM:   The next day when Sunday was over, then Monday morning I went over to the boss lady and told her, I don’t want you to put anything in this house while the soldier was there living for years. We want all new straw, and we want everything taken out and clean it and I want to paint all the walls before I do it.

DAD:   Not paint, but-

 DAUGHTER:   Whitewash.

DAD:   whitewash, whitewash.

 MOM:   I even put the-, even later we put the molded.

 DAUGHTER:   Drawing.

 MOM:   No, the molding.

DAD:   No, no, no, no, no. Some kind of figures out of picture.

 MOM:   Figures and I make it on paper and cut them out and then we paint, make them different color.

DAD:   Make here some kind of flowers and then put with oil over it so the paper is strong. And then you put on the wall and you paint, is a flower on the wall.

 MOM:   You can paint, buy this. (stencils)

DAD:   Okay, Mom think we should before we move in, we clean it.

 MOM:   And the whole week and was everything we’re scrubbing and washing.

DAD:   And so we live there, Why we move? We had even there church service. Right in the beginning, when we found believers, one man

from Hungary was in Rosenburg maybe 40 miles, from there, from our place and then Danny and we and one lady was in that Leibnich so we 4, 5 had a church service.

 DAUGHTER:   How long was Danny with us?

DAD:   Danny was with us till-oh, who was it?

 MOM:   Till  Katie was born.

 DAUGHTER:   So how long was he with us?

 MOM:   Real long. So we told him, Danny, you are a big man. You are old enough and you have a good job where you can go in town and get apartment for you, somebody rent. We need the place. We get a other baby, we need one child again out this room in the kitchen and that’s enough. You have a good job and he have money.

 

DAD:   But he was very good boy. He was like our boy.

 

MOM:   He was always like our boy. And then there was never a Sunday, he always came home when he was not working, he was here, not there in town.

 

DAUGHTER (ROSIE?):   What relationship is he to us?

 DAUGHTER:   Cousin. He’s a cousin.

DAD:   His mother was my sister. And so when we decide to leave then, we have no social security, we have no future not at all, and later on we had church in Graz [Austria], believers from here and there and everywhere, we had church in Graz. We had to travel every Sunday to Graz, walking, maybe 4, 5 miles to the railroad station then traveling there, leaving the children at home or taking them along and it was very inconvenient and so we want to move to Graz.

 DAUGHTER:   Mostly for the church.

DAD:   Mostly for the church purpose. And-

 MOM:   Most Sunday we went, we try, we want to go, we had to go leave the house morning 3, 4:00 and come evening home about 10, maybe later. We never know what’s happened to the children . . .

DAD:   And whenever we had-

 DAUGHTER:   Was I born in this house?

 MOM:   Yes, yes, you were born in this house, yes.

 DAUGHTER:   April of [19]49.

 MOM:   Oh, yes.

 DAUGHTER:   You were there till [19]50.

Before Danny was born, it already fall, ‘50.

DAUGHTER:   The fall of 1950.

DAD:   And it was hard to find a place in Graz, no place to find, but again, only the barracks, and barracks that we found, now it was almost like private was no anymore camp. Everyone lives for himself with a job but the barracks you fix up a little bit, but when we moved in, fixed up, raining, we have the put that umbrella here, or put that pail there, pail there.

 MOM:   And all the pans and everything on the bed, the children are now sleeping now not is raining over here, Dad, okay, put that thing over there. Then, okay, move the bed over there. Now starts here coming rain down, okay, move the bed over there. You don’t know what you should do, all the pans and everything, what else?

DAD:   And then we found a man.

 MOM:   No, windows, all broken out.

DAD:   I find a job.

 MOM:   You was trying…

DAD:   But very hard job, very hard job, making, not producing, but making sand. The sand and the gravel came from the… the dirt in the wall is it, through the screen divided, that was my job long time, very hard job, but makes no difference. Then we found a man who was willing to build for our money on his place a bedroom apartment for us.

 MOM:   Kitchen and bedroom…paid for the wood.

DAD:   And we gave the money through the bank but he never build apartment because he did not build, he somehow spent the money, he gave us, for temporary, he built a regular apartment but that apartment was just here was a kitchen and then was a hallway and then here was a bedroom on the other side. And that hallway was drafty, was just was covered, but was not closed, and in that apartment we had many time in that kitchen, that kitchen was not larger than our kitchen, I don’t think was larger and there was many time church service in there and there was that place where the children are.

MOM:   This was in the bedroom.

DAD:   Where we go to bed.

 MOM:   Bedroom, there was a little bit big, then the children can sleep on the bed. We had three . . . .

DAUGHTER:   Three bunks up.

 MOM:   Yeah, bedroom and our bed. And that’s not built-in like here for the clothes, no closets. And then some children was under the tablecloth, or under the table, nobody knows. The smaller, they are there on the beds, but sometimes they are fighting or beating each other. No, no, not loud noise, just, and they looked at Dad and was enough, stopped right away. They know they will get…

DAD:   I t was enough, I always sitting so that I could see the children.

 DAUGHTER:   Was it cold in this part of the country?

DAD:   Yes.­

 DAUGHTER:   It gets cold in the winter time?

DAD:   Oh, yes.

 DAUGHTER:   Just like Ohio? Or colder?

DAD:   About. And in that building, in that was the Danny born.

 DAUGHTER:   Oh, in this little apartment.

 MOM:   This apartment.

DAD:   He was born in December.

 MOM:   Oh, was cold.

DAD:   In a room where we had no stove.

 MOM:   No fire.

DAD:   No heat, no fire.

 DAUGHTER:   December, [19]51. December 17.

DAD:   No was ’50.

 DAUGHTER:   Yeah.

DAD:   No fire, no room, no fire in the room, no fireplace, no stove, no nothing, cold there, like cold.

 MOM:   You brought some kind of heater from somewhere. An electric heater, put them there for she cannot even give the baby a bath was so cold, frozen cold. I cannot be uncovered, not even the hand almost, so it’s cold.

 DAUGHTER:   Did we all sleep in that cold room?

 MOM:   No, some are sleeping in the kitchen. Some are in the kitchen, some are in the-, again, the same thing.

 DAD:   It was very hard time.

 DAUGHTER:   Do you remember that man’s name?

DAD:   Which man?

MOM:   Yeah, Singraber(?). Yes. Singraber, was living here…

DAD:   He had a daughter, she was a married for, deliver or something, post office and that lady, she was such a woman, she could not care money. He give her today, I would say in American money, $2, go buy grocery or $5, She bought grocery, everything whatsoever she thinks he need and leftover 50 cent, she bought for the $.50 chocolate or something for something in it for herself or for her child and she came home, “clap” [gesturing]. The cooking, I have forgotten to buy vinegar.

 MOM:   No paprika.

DAD:   Then, Mrs. Webel, could you borrow me a little bit.

 MOM:   No pika bona (baking soda).

DAD:   If she goes in the store tomorrow again, tomorrow again, every day.

 MOM:   She buys a little bit.

DAD:   And then give me for, I could say, for 5 penny, salt, for 10 penny, sugar, for 20 penny, that. So figure out everything what she need, better. When she got home, she needs something.

MOM:   Start cooking. Again something she had not.

DAD:   It’s the Singraber’s daughter.

 MOM:   Yeah, I said, Mrs. Spring, her name.

 DAUGHTER:   Spring.

 MOM:   Yeah. Mrs. Spring. I said, why you don’t save this, this was. She said, oh, Mrs. Webel, I’m so glad I shop today. Everything what I need, and I will bring yours back. I said, you don’t have to bring it back. She said, yah, I will. And I had a little leftover money, and then she show me, and our children was open wide their eyes and their mouth. And this little child eat chocolate and all messed up and ours like would like….

DAD:   She would even eat it, too.

 MOM:   Yeah, I said, why you don’t save this, this penny or whatever was you left? Maybe you need it later when you start again cooking. She said, oh, I made a good list, I know I had everything just enough. Finally she came laughing like this and she said, you are right, Mrs. Webel, I don’t have this at home. I said, I told you. Don’t spend every penny.

DAD:   But that happen every day.

 MOM:   Don’t spend every penny. She had never soap to wash her clothes. She had never soap to wash the clothes.

 DAUGHTER:   How long did you live in this apartment?

[end of audiotape side A; then interview recording resumes]

DAD:   We went, oh…

 DAUGHTER:   How old was Danny?

 MOM:   Danny was.. When we…

 DAUGHTER:   When you left?

 MOM:   When we left? How old?

DAD:   Was couple months, couple months.

MOM:   Yeah, couple months.

DAD:   In March, really before March, maybe February.

 DAUGHTER:   And that’s when you started making plans to come to the United States?

DAD:   We making plans always but was no opening, was not allowed. United States did not let no German out, German was considered enemy and no Germany. Hungarian and Yugoslav and Polish, they could, but not to United States, till they changed the law German could go. And then we right away applied and we went through it and so.

 DAUGHTER:   Were you corresponding with your sister here in the United States?

DAD:   Yes, yes.

 DAUGHTER:   To make plans to come. What sister? [Mrs. Keiper, née Webel]

 [Referring to Jakob Webel’s sister in Ohio]

DAD:   You have to have somebody to sponsor you, regardless who you are. If nobody, relative, church organization, or anybody have to sponsor you before you get. Because United States don’t let you come in otherwise.

 DAUGHTER:   In March of [19]’51 you decided to leave this apartment, where did you go?

DAD:   Then we decided, we left to go to America.

 MOM:   Oh, we was here in March already, 20th of March.

 DAUGHTER  (ROSIE):    Yeah, we arrived March, [19]51. But tell us about how the… when I got lost, what happened.

 DAUGHTER:   I want to talk about this first.

DAD:   We have decided before to go. We have to make plan. In that apartment we was longer. Katie was born in-

 DAUGHTER:   April, [19]49.

 MOM:   In the Au.

DAD:   Yes, but we didn’t came in [19]51 to Graz.

 MOM:   When Katie was little.

 DAUGHTER:   How little was-. You must have come in [19]49, Mother, to this apartment.

 MOM:   No, no. First in the barracks in Graz.

 DAUGHTER:   Yeah.

 MOM:   And then later in the apartment.

DAD:   Probably [19]’49 sometime. and we lived, we had a garden out that-

 MOM:   Yeah, we lived in the barracks.

DAD:   [19]49,  and sometime in [19]50, we moved-

 MOM:   This man, she built us apartment.

DAD:   -to that house and we always we made plans to go. First to Argentina, wherever we could go, because was no abiding place there.

 DAUGHTER:   And at this time now you no longer wanted to go back to Yugoslavia because there was nothing there.

DAD:   No, it is not possible to go.

 DAUGHTER:   Was your father already dead at this time? Yes.

DAD:   Yes. Yes.

 DAUGHTER:   And what about Uncle John? You said that he came back to Yugoslavia.

DAD:   He [i.e., Uncle John] was staying, he stayed in Yugoslavia.

 DAUGHTER:   So he was under Communist control?

DAD:   Yes. And he was there, and he was an unbeliever before, and he get converted, but after Dad died. And we must to live in Graz at least 2 year but 1 year in the barracks and 1 year by that Singraber. But in all the time we applied to go to United States and when we was ready to go ‘til the paper went through, was Danny born.

 DAUGHTER:   Danny born.

DAD:   So we have to make a new paper again, and then have once was, it was everything ready and then Karl was under-nourished.

 MOM:   Karl was not healthy.

DAD:   Then we have to have nothing wrong with children, just feed him eggs, raw eggs I give eggs or something like that.

 MOM:   Raw eggs.

DAD:   It came in 6 months back, then we came back, the law is changed, you cannot go.

 MOM:   And oh, oh, Karl was good, it just is the law again changed.

DAD:   Till finally wherever they go, we are ready to go, you can go.  Now, we have put money in that building. Our money is there that men give us, not the money, but he give us, black and white, we could live there, so and so long.

 MOM:   Five years, 5 years.

DAD:   So we sold that same building, the right to another family, believers..

 MOM:   For the rest of the years.

DAD:   But if we go out and leave empty, that man would not let them in.

 MOM:   The other people in.

DAD:   So we let the people in before we moved out so the people was there so-

 MOM:   He cannot throw them out. We sold them our right.

DAD:   Then that people did not have the money to give us, but HILTA, that’s the aid for the Switzerland, they give them the money so we had some money.

 DAUGHTER:   And that’s the money you had when you came to America.

DAD:   That’s the money. That was very little and it was transferred in American money, was maybe $50. I do recall how much, but then we have to go over to the United States part of Austria.

 DAUGHTER:   How did you do that? By train?

DAD:   By train. We have left packed, everything ours, go by train to Salzburg [in Austria, by the German border], Salzburg there is the main United States office or you can call it Consul.

 DAUGHTER:   Consul. Consulate.

DAD:   And there you get the visa to go, and sure, we, takes a long time and there Rosie got lost. How? Oh, that is upstairs office, you have to, there are many people that wait all day long to get in and out and so this and that and that. And the children, like children, went downstairs in the street looking in the windows, the TVs and that, that’s big city, that’s show window here and there, here is that, here is that, here is that. Somehow they get separated, the bigger children from Rosie. And Rosie was small and she got…[2]

 MOM:   And she came around just now not to..

DAD:   Came the children and no Rosie! Then down, down, looking every street corner looking for Rosie, no Rosie! Somebody told us, go there, there, so, so far.  It’s far to that way, that way, and that is police station  —  and probably they know something. And we came there, we looked in the door and there was Rosie among them, and she right away said, “Mom, what’s my name?”

 MOM:   She was crying, “Mom, what’s my name?”

DAD:   They ask her “what’s your name?”  She know the name but just she could  —  “Where are you from, what street, which town?”  —  and she does not know, she didn’t [clarify] nothing.

 MOM:   She was this, you cannot, and the police all around her, they gave her candies. And she was crying.

DAD:   She could talk in German, she talk German with them, but she does not know her address, she does not know where she is.

 DAUGHTER:   So then from this, you got your visa. Then what happened?

 DAD:   There we get our papers to go to the United States and that was the first transport of Germans to be allowed to go to United States. And the president of that… United States government had organization who handled that. The president from that organization, how they call it I have forgotten, makes no difference… Mr. Wagner, and he came to Salzburg to congratulate to us we get to the United States because we had small child, we go with plane, the other people go with ship, but we go with plane because we got… and we will be there in 3 days, we are in United States and congratulate. But no plane goes from Salzburg. The planes goes [sic] from Germany, from Munich, so we have to go with the train to Munich with our papers to go to America. When we came there, the leadership from that camp has no idea Germans could go to United States. What kind of organization is this? I do not know. But they have no, you could not go. They assigned us, again, a big hotel room that’s where we lived. It’s a big room and that’s our room. We go to the kitchen to eat and so on, but the kitchen is so-, the children, from so and so much year, goes over here. So old goes over there, and the babies goes over there.

MOM:   Mother with the babies.

 DAD:   The mothers gets over there.

 MOM:   And the fathers way in the…-

 DAD:   What kind of organization is it? And I made then and every week or now is your wash day, you could go in the kitchen and wash your stuff, now is your wash day, so and so on.

MOM:   Is all you can wash.

 DAD:   And every day is a list there, they and they fly to America, they and they fly, never we, never we, then one day.. We made.. everything written, application, asking they should give us their food, one plate all for all. I told her, have to explain why, why you want to get the food.

MOM:   Oh, cause the mother go there and the father go there and other.

 DAD:   Because our children could not eat that. How could we sent a child for 5 year, go there, get your the food and eat and the child not get…. So we got lost, we got hungry, and finally they agree to give us bargain, that’s you get a pound that, a pound that, a pound that, and so on. And when the time goes, came Jews, the rich people from there, refuge from Poland, they fly, and we stay.

MOM:   Just they came in yesterday, the other day, then they fly. And we sitting here for weeks.

DAD:   Yeah, all them, they go, and we sitting. What should we do? What should we do? Wrote, sit down, I wrote a letter, Mr. So and so, president from the . . .   I would say unit or such an organization, Frankfurt, Germany.  We are in Germany too, but I do not know his address, but they know if I should write President Carter  [actually Truman was president during AD1951],  Washington,  they would know [how] to find him.  I don’t have to put zip code in [i.e., that was prior to when U.S. mail required use of zip codes].

DAUGHTER:   That’s right.

 DAD:   So I wrote him, and so I wrote a letter something like that in German. I am so-and-so, my name, and on that and that date I was in Salzburg and you was there and we was ready to fly to United States and you congratulated us and say we will be in 3 days in America, but we have to go to Munich, and we came to Munich and we are here so long and nobody takes care of us and nobody knows when we can go and we are here. What for? What will do? Some just to complaining and asking for help, and don’t take a long time, 2 days.

MOM:   Couple days.

 DAD:  A day or 2, then office said, ‘Mr. Webel tomorrow you will fly’.

MOM:   The lady said, “Mrs. Webel, tomorrow you fly. We got orders, don’t tell anyone. You got orders you will have to fly.”

 DAD:   And Mom was sick.

MOM:   I came up to Dad and said….

 DAD:   She got sick, she get vomiting, she get dizzy, she sick, oh, and before you go to the plane, you have to go to the [medical] doctor to check you and check everybody. We came to the [medical] doctor, mom was sick, but the doctor was refuge [i.e., a refugee], a Hungarian man, and when I found out he’s Hungarian man, I talk to him Hungarian, and when we talk Hungarian, then was Mom “okay”.   [ In other words, the Hungarian physician decided that since Mom Webel could speak Hungarian, she was “okay” enough by his standards! ]

MOM:   He don’t even look at me. Not even measure my temperature.

 DAD:   But beside that, they had a hired plane, not a United States, they hired a plane to take that special transport over, but the company that owned the plane, said no, we could not take so many children. And they picked out all such family with so many children so they could not go with so many children.

MOM:   The most can take is so much children. That’s all . . .

DAD:   Then everybody thought ‘Webel family will get out, we will just go.’ But I know we will go because I know where came the order, I wrote a letter.

MOM:   This office girl told me there is the order.

 DAD:   We know that.

MOM:   Then right away we know what’s happened. Exactly that.

 DAD:   So that family eliminated 2 children, that family eliminated 5 children, or with four, and we go.

MOM:   They were surprised. All the neighborhood. . . .

 DAD:   Not only surprised. All those generals are mad!  —  we go with so many children, 10 children.

DAUGHTER:   So this special transport took you where?

 DAD:   From Munich to New York.

DAUGHTER:   To New York.

 DAD:   But not direct. In that time was no jet, was propeller and we went first that is a Scandinavian airline. We first went from Munich to Scandinavia to Copenhagen and from there to Scotland, and from there to Greensland [i.e., Greenland].

DAUGHTER  (ROSIE?):   Greenland.

 DAUGHTER:   Did you have to change planes every time?

 MOM:   Yes, almost, yeah.

 DAD:   I don’t think we change but we have to go out.

MOM:   Yeah, yeah. They cleaned it for 2 hours or something.

 DAD:   Yeah, and then go again the plane and go farther. I don’t think we changed the plane. I just think we..

DAUGHTER:   They just fixed it and it got refueled and all stuff and it took that long to get going.

DAD:   Yeah.

MOM:   Once we had to go down, was full of ice and everything, it was so heavy with snow and ice.

DAD:   The wings were filled with ice so they had to land to thaw.

MOM:   Everything was different.

 DAUGHTER:   How long did this take?

 DAD:   Not long. It take about 2 days, second day we are here, just one night.

MOM:   Yeah, 18 hours. That’s all together.

 DAUGHTER (ROSIE?): Yeah, it takes 6 to 8.

 DAUGHTER:   Then you got to New York City.

 DAD:   To New York City.

DAUGHTER:   And I know there was a problem in New York City.

 MOM:   There was a problem.

 DAD:   They, whosoever [notice again the King James English!] brought us, we… they have to give us to the sponsor. Some goes with the train too, but that Keiper, our sponsor, made arrangement to meet us in New York and Reinhardt Keiper went to New York to meet us. And when we arrived, we arrive to the airport, today is Kennedy airport, they call it international airport at that time I think so. We are here waiting for sponsor to take us and nobody came. Reinhardt Keiper came with Freddie Fetzer.

MOM:   Three cars came.

DAD:   And Reinhardt Keiper on the phone, didn’t have no idea where the plane land, here on the phone asking is there here the plane, that and that and that, and never went Reinhardt Keiper on the phone but always Freddie Fetzer on the phone. Why I do not know. And when they asked who is talking, ‘Freddie Fetzer’. He didn’t tell him…

MOM:   They don’t say anything.

 DAD:   About the family Webel. So they could not find out where the Webel family is and they could not find out where the sponsor is. They called Medina [Ohio], “What’s happened to the Keiper people?  They should pick up the people and they are not here.” “They are in New York.” So late evening, the whole day we stay there. Not fenced in but almost fenced in, here you are allowed to be and…. Like in every crossing you remember something what you have forgotten.   .  .  .  . .

 [Dad reminisces for a while about other topics.]

DAUGHTER:   Okay, Dad, you’ll have to get back to New York City now. The last thing you said was we were in a roped off area.

 DAD:   We were roped off and everybody is was gone, just we, and nobody is now, nobody recognize, nobody have to feed us because we are supposed to be by Keipers already, and we are hungry and the people are not allowed to go to it, keep somebody by, and put an orange there like you-

MOM:   And feed us.

 DAD:   Like embarrassing for us, like hurry up catch, no, the children did not went. They was ashamed that they was ashamed to do something like that. And finally they found someone who could talk in German and went take me a store to buy something meat for children to have to eat. Then we eat and finally came Keipers. Finally they are awaken, the Keiper went to the phone and then they say where we are and then they get us. And when they get in that cars, travel to home, it was already dark and night and they got lost on the highway, they have to turn back,

MOM:   It was raining, snowing…

 DAD:   Then we go in a motel [in New York], and then we arrive the next day here [in Medina, Ohio].

[The interview ends at page 183 of From Vinkovci to Medina.]

statue-of-liberty.ad1951-closeup

This wraps up the immigration chronicle of the Webel family, from Vinkovci (Yugoslavia, now Croatia) unto Medina (Ohio), as refugees (“displaced persons”), ending with a successful landing and resettling in America, with some of their future offspring (Nate and Luke Webel), descended from young Robert Webel, to eventually arrive on planet Earth — as God’s providences in Webel family history continue —  as native Texans.

Webel-dozen.newspaper-photo

Volksdeutsche by the Dozen AD1951

In particular, that same Robert Webel (born in Yugoslavia, as a baby, with his family later fleeing Tito’s Communism) is the father of Stephen Webel, who is father (by his wife Erica) of sons and daughters, including brothers Nate and Luke Webel, the two native Texans.  (Thus Robert Webel, born in WWII, is the paternal grandfather of Nate Webel, Luke Webel, and their sisters.)

During January of AD2018 this author visited Chaplain Robert (and Marcia) Webel, in St. Petersburg, Florida, where they have lived for many years. Chaplain Bob gave me a book, then, which I since have read —  STINGING NETTLE, by Carola Schlatter & Kendra Ramsier (Westview, 2014; 284 pages), which chronicles many tragic adversities and survival adventures of Vladimir Fortenbacher and Margaretha Wittmann, who both became refugees from war-torn Yugoslavia, experiencing the heinous horrors of Tito’s Communism there immediately following World War II.  (Margaretha’s memories of living in concentration camps in Yugoslavia, after WWII, is a testimony to God’s sustaining grace – as many of her family were barbarically starved, tortured, and killed by Yugoslavian Communists (who hated anyone with any kind of German connection – including the German-speaking Swabians of Yugoslavia).

Vladimir and Margaretha both fled to Canada; they met there and married, and parented 12 children (10 daughters and 2 sons), whom they raised in the same Apostolic Christian Church (Nazarene) group that the Webels belonged to.  [For more on this Anabaptist group, see  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_Christian_Church_(Nazarene) .]

Webel.Jakob-Katarina-faces

So, for now, this series concludes with an appreciation that two native-Texan boys, Nate Webel (born in AD2007) and Luke Webel (born in AD2012), as well as their sisters, descend from German immigrant stock (“Volksdeutsche”) who trace back one ancestral line to paternal grandfather’s parents, Jakob Webel and Katarina Schleicher, whose early family life together included surviving WWII.      


ABOUT THE AUTHOR:  Dr. James J. S. Johnson is a member of the German-Texas Heritage Society, and an occasional contributor to its Journal pages.  A lover and teacher of Providential history and geography, Jim has taught at 4 different Christian colleges (LeTourneau University, Dallas Christian College, Concordia University Texas at Fort Worth, and ICR School of Biblical Apologetics) in Texas, as well as aboard 9 different cruise ships. As a C.P.E.E. (Certified Paternity Establishment Entity, credentialed by the Texas Attorney General’s Office), Jim maintains a strong interest in family history documentation. After studying under many teachers, at many schools, Jim happily acknowledges that his best teacher (under God) was Chaplain Robert (Bob) Webel.

birding-chez-webel.bob-and-jjsj

Chaplain Bob Webel & JJSJ at Webel backyard, birdwatching [photograph by Marcia Webel]

><>  JJSJ     profjjsj@aol.com


Below is Chaplain Robert Webel (who was 8 when his family came as refugees to America) with his wife, Marcia Webel, now residents of Florida. Chaplain Bob supplemented and clarified his sister’s transcribed interview of their parents (titled From Vinkovci to Medina) as quoted hereinabove.

Webel.Bob-with-Marcia


EFERENCES

[1] The 7 earlier episodes, in this Webel family history series, are published as follows:  (1) “Volksdeutsche by the Dozen, Part One: Jakob and Katarina Agreed to Marry Before They Ever Spoke to Each Other, A True Example of Love at First Sight…and First Sound”, Journal of the German-Texan Heritage Society, 35(1):25-32 (spring 2013), quoting from Rosalie Webel Whiting’s From Vinkovci to Medina (unpublished Webel family history), supplemented by personal interviews with Chaplain Robert Webel (during August AD2012); (2) “Volksdeutsche by the Dozen, Part Two: Volksdeutsche in Croatia, before World War II: Jakob and Katarina Webel are Merchants in Marinci (Taking Care of Business and the Business of Life)”, Journal of the German-Texan Heritage Society, 36(3):154-170 (fall 2014); (3)Volksdeutsche by the Dozen, Part Three: World War  II  Confronts  Jakob  and  Katarina  Webel (Swabians  Face  Nazi  Invaders  and  Yugoslavia’s  Break-up)”, Journal of the German-Texan Heritage Society, 37(2):98-113 (summer 2015);  (4) “Volksdeutsche by the Dozen, Part Four:  Surviving in Yugoslavia, Then Fleeing for the First Time – Jakob & Katarina Webel Escape from Marinci to Vinkovci,” Journal of the German-Texan Heritage Society, 37(4):219-240 (winter 2015);  (5) “Volksdeutsche by the Dozen, Part Five:  Fleeing Yugoslavia, Escaping the Communist Takeover: Jakob & Katarina Webel Flee Toward Germany,” Journal of the German-Texan Heritage Society, 38(3):110-124 (fall 2016);  (6) “Volksdeutsche by the Dozen, Part Six:  After Yugoslavia, Wandering Through Europe: Jakob & Katarina Webel, Fleeing To Germany,” Journal of the German-Texan Heritage Society, 39(1):196-215 (spring 2017);  (7) “Volksdeutsche by the Dozen, Part Seven:  Surviving on an Austrian Farm (and Elsewhere) After World War II: Jakob & Katarina Webel Family, Hoping for a New Home,” Journal of the German-Texan Heritage Society, 39(4):389-418 (winter 2017).  This 8th episode has been published as:  “Volksdeutsche by the Dozen, Part Eight:  Refugees in Austria, Fleeing Post-WWII Europe for America—The Jakob & Katarina Webel Family Journey to a New Home,” Journal of the German-Texan Heritage Society, 40(1):38-54 (spring 2018).

[2] This crisis is mentioned, as an example of identity-context confusion, in James J. S. Johnson, “The Gap Theory: A Trojan horse Tragedy”, ACTS & FACTS, 41(10):8-10 (October 2012), posted at http://www.icr.org/article/gap-theory-trojan-horse-tragedy .