# Psalms in Meter - Paraphrase?



## BobVigneault (Aug 10, 2005)

This may have been addressed already. I enjoy reading the psalms in meter just for the poetic beauty and theme that is captured there.

I am impressed how the meaning is unviolated in most portions of the psalms but I can't help but feel uncomfortable that the meaning is being messed with becasue of the re-ordering of the words - dare I use the expression, 'the paraphrase of the scriptures'.

What is the difference between re-ordering the psalms to fit a meter and paraphrasing ala Ken Taylor? I'm not being contentious, I really want to know.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Aug 10, 2005)

See
http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/paraphrases.htm


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 10, 2005)

When does a translation become a paraphrase (this question can be applied to Bibles as well as Psalters)? The 1650 Scottish metrical psalter claims to be a faithful translation:

1673 Puritan Preface to the Scottish Metrical Psalter:



> The Psalms of David In Meeter. Newly Translated and diligently compared with the Original Text, and former Translations: More plain, smooth and agreeable to the Text, than any heretofore."



A paraphrase, like that of Isaac Watts, claims to be an imitation of the psalms in the language of the New Testament (because he thought the language of David in some cases was not fit for Christian worship). 

Translation and paraphrase have different goals. The former seeks to faithfully represent what is said in the original language in our language for singing purposes. The latter seeks to rewrite the original thoughts to present new thoughts for praise in song. Translation in metre is not paraphrase. The psalms lend themselves to poetic parallelism in our language just as they do in Hebrew. A faithful translator seeks to reproduce the content in musical form while those who would paraphrase seek to modify the content to express new ideas based upon the psalm.

[Edited on 8-10-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## kceaster (Aug 10, 2005)

So this is not a paraphrase?

That man hath perfect blessedness,
who walketh not astray
In counsel of ungodly men,
nor stands in sinners' way,

In the Hebrew text, blessed or happy is an adverb. The man is happy or blessed. As John Brown translated it, he makes two errors: First, he turns an adverbial use into a nominative use (direct object.) The psalmist is not saying that the man has blessedness, rather the man is in the state of being blessed or happy. Secondly, where is perfect coming from? The lexicons I use do not even convey the concept of perfection in happiness. Blessedness and bliss are used as synonyms, but perfection is not mentioned. Further on the use of perfect, we cannot have perfection in any way shape or form here on earth. The WSC talks about the believer being perfectly blessed, but only in the eschaton. So, he has turned the phrase into a completely different concept by translating it like this.

I don't believe that we can say that a man has perfect blessedness because he does not walk in the counsel of the ungodly. There are many who would be considered godly who would give us the wrong advice. I don't believe the legalist to be ungodly in all they do, but I certainly don't believe I am perfectly blessed because I take their counsel. 

The better rendering is to leave the adverb alone and not put another modifier in there. If John Brown is right, then we can have perfect blessedness as long as we do not walk astray, so that the operation of blessing is based upon our walking. However, I think it is much more accurate to say that God puts me in a blessed state so that I have no desire to walk in the counsel of the ungodly.

I think his paraphrase is not conveying the correct concept.

If this is just the first line of the first psalm, think about how many more ways the words have been changed to fit the metre.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 10, 2005)

Kevin,

As a point of clarification, the text used by John Brown was not translated by him but rather he used the 1650 Scottish metrical psalter (all he did was provide expositive notes for each psalm). Since I don't know Hebrew, I am not equipped to address your specific critique. However, the men who translated the Scottish psalter under the supervision of the Westminster Assembly were some of the most gifted Hebraists the world has ever known. I would gladly listen to others more qualified than I to deal with the issue you raised, but I have great confidence in the faithfulness of the 1650 Scottish metrical psalter to the original text.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 10, 2005)

From the preface to the Bay Psalm Book (probably written by Richard Mather or John Cotton):



> As for the scruple that some take at the translation of the Book of Psalms into metre, because David´s psalms were sung in his own words without metre: we answer"”First, there are many verses together in several psalms of David which run in rhythms (as those that know Hebrew and as Buxtorf shows Thesau. pa. 629.) which shows at least the lawfulness of singing psalms in English rhythms.
> 
> Secondly, the psalms are penned in such verses as are suitable to the poetry of the Hebrew language, and not in the common style of such other books of the Old Testament as are not poetical; now no Protestant doubts but that all the books of scripture should by God´s ordinance be extant in the mother tongue of each nation, that they may be understood of all, hence the psalms are to be translated into our English tongue; and in it our English tongue we are to sing them, then as all our English songs (according to the course of our English poetry) do run in metre, so ought David´s psalms to be translated into metre, that so we may sing the Lord´s songs, as in our English tongue so in such verses as are familiar to an English ear which are commonly metrical: and as it can be no just offense to any good conscience to sing David´s Hebrew songs in English words, so neither to sing his poetical verses in English poetical metre: men might as well stumble at singing the Hebrew psalms in our English tunes (and not in the Hebrew tunes) as at singing them in English metre, (which are our verses) and not in such verses as are generally used by David according to the poetry of the Hebrew language: but the truth is, as the Lord has hid from us the Hebrew tunes, lest we should think ourselves bound to imitate them; so also the course and frame (for the most part) of their Hebrew poetry, that we might not think ourselves bound to imitate that, but that every nation without scruple might follow as the grave sort of tunes of their own country songs, so the graver sort of verses of their own country poetry.
> 
> Neither let any think, that for the metre sake we have taken liberty or poetical license to depart from the true and proper sense of David´s words in the Hebrew verses, no; but it has been one part of our religious care and faithful endeavour, to keep close to the original text.



From the 1673 Puritan Preface to the Scottish Metrical Psalter:



> The translation which is now put into thy hands cometh nearest to the original of any that we have seen, and runneth with such a fluent sweetness, that we thought fit to recommend it to thy Christian acceptance; some of us having used it already, with great comfort and satisfaction.
> 
> Thomas Manton D.D Henry Langley D.D. John Owen D.D.
> 
> ...


----------



## JohnV (Aug 10, 2005)

On this subject, what is "paraphrase" and what is "dynamic equivalence"?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> On this subject, what is "paraphrase" and what is "dynamic equivalence"?



Paraphrase

Dynamic Equivalence


----------



## JohnV (Aug 10, 2005)

Yes, but which is being done when rendering the Psalms to verse? Could it be better described as dynamic equivalence ( disregarding the bad connotation that has with the NIV )? Or is it translation, keeping to the idea of verse and exact wording as much as possible? I think "paraphrase" may be too pejorative. Isn't the question more about Scriptural soundness than literal translation?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> Yes, but which is being done when rendering the Psalms to verse? Could it be better described as dynamic equivalence ( disregarding the bad connotation that has with the NIV )? Or is it translation, keeping to the idea of verse and exact wording as much as possible? I think "paraphrase" may be too pejorative. Isn't the question more about Scriptural soundness than literal translation?



I think (as noted in the Bay Psalm Book preface quoted earlier) that translation of a Hebrew psalm into English metre in order to be done faithfully requires poetic parallelism. Hence, the rythym must be captured in the English in order to be an accurate translation. But, yes, it should be word-for-word as much as possible, rather than thought-for-thought.


----------



## kceaster (Aug 10, 2005)

*Andrew...*

I am not critiquing per se that they are not faithful to the word as much as can be, so that we should throw them out. But what I am saying is that they are not inerrant nor are they wholly inspired. If I am correct with my statements previously, Psalm 1 in _The Book of Psalms for Singing_ is paraphrase for the reasons I've already enumerated.

I am also in agreement that the Psalms should be put in metrical form in every language. I believe along with many others that the Psalms are to be sung in every language. They are the Lord's Songs (I Chron. 25:7.)

But where I differ on this issue is that the Psalms we have in English metre are inspired songs over against uninspired hymnody. I do not see the English Psalter as any different than biblical hymnody. Not all hymns are as good as others, so we must be cautious. But it does not go against the RPW or, more importantly, against the command of God for us to sing, "A Mighty Fortress is Our God," or "Praise to the Lord, the Almighty," or "Holy, Holy, Holy," or "Our God Our Help in Ages Past."

In Christ,

KC


----------



## kceaster (Aug 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> I think (as noted in the Bay Psalm Book preface quoted earlier) that translation of a Hebrew psalm into English metre in order to be done faithfully requires poetic parallelism. Hence, the rythym must be captured in the English in order to be an accurate translation. But, yes, it should be word-for-word as much as possible, rather than thought-for-thought.



That is why I posted what I posted before. There is no word in the text that can be translated "perfect", nor does the word translated blessed denote a perfection in blessedness. Further, if I'm right about the usage, nominalization of blessed moves the emphasis from God the first cause of blessing, to the man who walks in a certain way as the first cause.

Anybody else see the Hebrew differently? I'm the first to admit I'm no expert.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> I am not critiquing per se that they are not faithful to the word as much as can be, so that we should throw them out. But what I am saying is that they are not inerrant nor are they wholly inspired. If I am correct with my statements previously, Psalm 1 in _The Book of Psalms for Singing_ is paraphrase for the reasons I've already enumerated.
> 
> I am also in agreement that the Psalms should be put in metrical form in every language. I believe along with many others that the Psalms are to be sung in every language. They are the Lord's Songs (I Chron. 25:7.)
> ...



Kevin,

I've lost track of which psalter version you are referring to now, but on the issue of psalmody vs. hymnody I'll refrain from further debate because that has been covered extensively in other threads. We view the application of the RPW differently with respect to psalms, but I think most people recognize the difference between translations of the psalms (while allowing that some translations are more or less perfect) and paraphrases (which are not bound by adherence to the original text). The former are inspired and the latter are uninspired.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Aug 10, 2005)

Conclusion from
http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/paraphrases.htm



> *Summary: the Force of the Objection*
> So we are back to the question of the logical force of the objection. If the objection has force with respect to the singing of the Psalms it has the same force with respect to the reading of the Scripture. What is that force? It is an admission that our translations are not as perfect as we would like. We should always be ready to submit our translations to further revision. The Authorized Version of the Bible has not been revised since 1769. Even it could use some work: there are a number of archaic words.
> 
> Here is what the objectors are seemingly trying to say. "œYou folks are not really singing the words of God. You are just singing the words of man as they understand the words of God to be. And that is the same thing we are doing. When we sing John Wesley or Fanny Crosby or Isaac Watts, we are just singing their interpretation of the word of God. That is all we are doing and that is all you folks are doing when you sing a paraphrase."
> ...


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Aug 10, 2005)

And a section from "Review of Psalmody"
http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/crampton.htm


> *PARAPHRASES, VERSIONS, AND TRANSLATIONS*
> There is no question in this reviewer's mind that there are many poor and even "loose" paraphrases of the Psalms available today. Nor would I maintain that the rules of translation are identical for a translation intended for word study, reading, and singing. Some of the worst metrical versions of the Psalms happen also to be some of the most recent. Some are little more than "ditties." Yet, to say that a translation should be accurate is not to say that word order must be followed in the target language as it appears in the source language. Most of our readers are familiar with Psalm 23:1-2. . .
> 
> *Authorized Version:*
> ...


----------



## kceaster (Aug 10, 2005)

*Chris...*



> _Originally posted by NaphtaliPress_
> Conclusion from
> http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/paraphrases.htm
> 
> ...



I read the article. But I do not believe that I'm arguing in the same vein. What I'm trying to say is that in putting the psalms in metrical form, certain liberties must be taken that are not taken when constraints are not present. I've tried to put the actual words in some sort of meter and there are times when "filler" words are necessary, or phrases and words repeated. But one has to be careful in nominalization or making the subject a predicate or vice versa. This changes the meaning, as I have shown above.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Aug 10, 2005)

This is not a loaded question to push a non-EP perspective, but just something I have wondered about. Assuming EP is correct, why put the Psalms in rhymed meter at all? Is it really impossible to sing them without putting them in strict meter? (Actually, I know it isn't, as it is frequently done in praise and worship music--but surely it could be done without the pop flavor.) 

Or, at the very least, could rhymes be avoided? The rhymes seem sometimes to result in really convoluted sentence structure, and even if the verses are a perfect translation, it's hard to understand what they are saying. Why introduce the poetic device of rhyme which is not in the original language, especially when it occasionally results in a word choice that might not be the best to convey the meaning? Do we have to make the Psalms conform to our standards of poetry and music to make them suitable for worship or should we conform our standards of poetry and music to the style of the Psalms?

I see the explanation in one of Andrew's posts from the Bay Psalm Book, but this seems to assume that English-speakers simply must, because of what they are accustomed to, sing in meter. First of all, I wonder if this is sufficient justification to begin with--if we produce a song more faithful to the poetic spirit of the original psalm, isn't it worth our while to become accustomed to this style? But secondly, it is no longer true that English speakers are only accustomed to songs and poetry in regular meter. 

Also, if all aspects of the psalms are inspired, as we believe they are, is it not only the words and their meaning, but also the poetic style, that have been inspired? Ought we not, then, to try to preserve the poetic style as best we can, even for singing? 

This is not at all a challenge to EP. It is just something I have continually wondered about in these discussions. After all, even if the non-EP crowd could prove that the psalms in meter aren't a perfect translation of the text, that wouldn't disprove EP, but would show that better psalm translations were needed. I'm sure these will be easy questions for Andrew or someone to answer, and I will probably be easily satisfied by a good answer.

[Edited on 8-10-2005 by Ex Nihilo]


----------



## blhowes (Aug 10, 2005)

In the original Hebrew, did the Psalms follow any rhyming patterns and what metrical patterns did they follow?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Ex Nihilo_
> This is not a loaded question to push a non-EP perspective, but just something I have wondered about. Assuming EP is correct, why put the Psalms in rhymed meter at all? Is it really impossible to sing them without putting them in strict meter? (Actually, I know it isn't, as it is frequently done in praise and worship music--but surely it could be done without the pop flavor.)
> 
> Or, at the very least, could rhymes be avoided? The rhymes seem sometimes to result in really convoluted sentence structure, and even if the verses are a perfect translation, it's hard to understand what they are saying. Why introduce the poetic device of rhyme which is not in the original language, especially when it occasionally results in a word choice that might not be the best to convey the meaning? Do we have to make the Psalms conform to our standards of poetry and music to make them suitable for worship or should we conform our standards of poetry and music to the style of the Psalms?
> ...



If I can boil your question down, I think you are asking why is metre required in English psalmody? If that's the question, the answer is pretty simple. It's not. _Metrical_ psalmody is not of the essence of _exclusive_ psalmody. 

Chanting prose psalms is entirely acceptable and in accordance with the principles of psalmody. In fact, my RPCNA psalter has a section in the back which provides an introduction to chanting. Moreover, Psalm 100C uses an irregular tune called "Enter" to sing the KJV Bible translation of that Psalm (non-rhyming prose). There are multiple examples of this in my RPCNA psalter, including Psalm 23. Gregorian chant was used for centures to sing the psalms. 

There are no inspired tunes. But the Psalms are meant to be _sung_. They are poetic musical compositions. Hence, when the Reformation restored the Psalter to its rightful place in Christian worship, it was connected to 1) the rise of the vernacular language in contrast to the Latin in use in Gregorian chant 2) the rise and development of both poetry and music as art forms and 3) the emphasis on congregational singing. Metrical versification was almost universally recognized by the Reformers in most countries as the best means of using vernacular language Psalm translations to convey the musical poetry of the Hebrew psalms for the purpose of being sung by all members of the congregation. It is simple and easy to learn, and conforms with principles of orderliness in worship. But overall the decision to move from chanting to metre is ultimately one of informed discretion, not a matter of doctrine or an application of the RPW. 

This commentary on the 1635 Scottish Psalter may be helpful as it sheds light on musical development in connection with psalmody:



> The musical language that our ears hear as "normal" today came on the scene just before the year 1700 in Europe. This musical vocabulary of major and minor scales for melodies, and the emphasis on the relationship between the first and fifth degrees of the scale ("do" and "so") for harmonies has spread to every modern nation and influenced it to a great or greater degree. (In fact, the popular "Do, Re, Mi" from The Sound of Music is a celebration of this neat and consistent musical system. Not only is each note of the major scale lauded one step at a time, but each big chorus of the tune always ends with that most important leap of "so-do.")
> Because our ears have been programmed to this at least from birth, it is understandable that almost all musical pieces we listen to regularly today, including our oldest classical favorites, were written after 1700. On the other hand, the further we go backward from 1700, the odder the music sounds to modern ears. This is because melody (the "tune") was conceived as a string of almost exclusively step-wise tones, without consideration of how it would be harmonized or even how it might be set into a nice, square, repetitive rhythmic pattern. This would be rather like taking the white keys on the piano, starting from any key at random, meandering up and down at will but without skipping over a key, and ending on the starting note. Actually a couple of small leaps were permissible in a tune, but steps were the rule. "The Star Spangled Banner," not having anything but leaps among its first eight tones, would have sounded like a kitten on the keys to ancient ears, and "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" would have been dumped after the first word with its huge leap up from the first to the second note.
> To oversimplify we might say that the modern (post-1700) philosophy is "Make sure the harmony and rhythm are good and we can fit a nice tune on top," while the ancient (pre-1700) philosophy was "Make sure the tune is smooth and easily singable and we can live with whatever harmonies, scales, and rhythms happen along the way."
> It follows that a hymnal from 1635 will have music that seems a bit strange at first, and the uneven rhythmic patterns probably won´t lead to an immediate, uncontrollable urge to jump up and dance. But step back a moment and let the words and music speak on their own terms, and it will soon become clear why the ears of the time found the combination to be a perfect fit.




[Edited on 8-11-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## heartoflesh (Aug 10, 2005)

Evie,

I'm no expert on EP, but from what you wrote I would agree that rhyme is not important. The metre would be important however since we're trying to put words to music, which is based on mathematics.


----------



## Augusta (Aug 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> In the original Hebrew, did the Psalms follow any rhyming patterns and what metrical patterns did they follow?



Hebrew poetic styles are many and include Paralellism, Synonymous Parallelism, Antithetical Parallelism, Synthetical Parallelism, Climactic Parallelism, General Word Pairs, Traditional Word Pairs, Merism, Chiasm, Inclusio, Repeated Refrain, and Acrostic Psalms. 

Acrostic Psalms would be the hardest to tranlate as they go through the 22 letter Hebrew alphabet in order at the beginning of each line of the psalm. 

Here is a link where you can read about this subject.

http://home.apu.edu/~geraldwilson/HebrewPoetry.html


Another link on Acrostics particularly which are found many places in the Bible and not just the psalms. 
http://www.bible-researcher.com/acrostics.html


----------



## blhowes (Aug 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Augusta_
> Hebrew poetic styles are many and include Paralellism, Synonymous Parallelism, Antithetical Parallelism, Synthetical Parallelism, Climactic Parallelism, General Word Pairs, Traditional Word Pairs, Merism, Chiasm, Inclusio, Repeated Refrain, and Acrostic Psalms.
> 
> Acrostic Psalms would be the hardest to tranlate as they go through the 22 letter Hebrew alphabet in order at the beginning of each line of the psalm.
> ...


Tracy,
Thanks for the info and the links. Very interesting. I look forward to reading the articles tomorrow.
Bob


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Aug 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> If I can boil your question down, I think you are asking why is metre required in English psalmody? If that's the question, the answer is pretty simple. It's not. _Metrical_ psalmody is not of the essence of _exclusive_ psalmody.
> 
> Chanting prose psalms is entirely acceptable and in accordance with the principles of psalmody. In fact, my RPCNA psalter has a section in the back which provides an introduction to chanting. Moreover, Psalm 100C uses an irregular tune called "Enter" to sing the KJV Bible translation of that Psalm (non-rhyming prose). There are multiple examples of this in my RPCNA psalter, including Psalm 23. Gregorian chant was used for centures to sing the psalms.



Thank you! This makes very much sense, and I am also glad to hear that there is some singing of non-rhyming prose. 



> _Originally posted by Rick Larson_
> I'm no expert on EP, but from what you wrote I would agree that rhyme is not important. The metre would be important however since we're trying to put words to music, which is based on mathematics.



I do understand musical meters, but I don't think they would require psalms to be translated into iambs or some other strict meter (which, if my interpretation of Andrew's info is correct, they are _not_). I would imagine that even if we made up tunes to fit non-rhyming, irregularly metered psalms, the music would have a fairly regular meter. (For that matter, I think most people without extensive musical training would probably make up a melody in 4/4 time, which seems to feel the most natural.) This does not, however, require the verse to have a _regular_ poetic meter--not that there is no relationship.


----------



## Dan.... (Aug 10, 2005)

Having the psalms translated into particular meters is important for the sake of ease in singing. If all of the psalms were translated into CM (8686), SM(6686), LM(8888), or 8787, you could literally sing all of them to four different tunes. This makes it easier on the congregation, so that all they would have to learn is a few tunes in each meter and they could sing anything to those tunes. 

This is especially important if the congregation is singing without the aid of instruments. Imagine having a different tune to all 150 psalms in irregular meters and requiring the congregation to sight read the notes while singing without instumental aid. - Chaos.


[Edited on 8-11-2005 by Dan....]


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Aug 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Dan...._
> This is especially important if the congregation is singing without the aid of instruments. Imagine having a different tune to all 150 psalms in irregular meters and requiring the congregation to sight read the notes while singing without instumental aid. - Chaos.
> 
> 
> [Edited on 8-11-2005 by Dan....]



This is an excellent point. Congregational singing just isn't what it ought to be if the congregation isn't able to do it.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 11, 2005)

From a Wikipedia article on metrical psalters:



> Note also should be taken of the frequently quoted thoughts of Erasmus, who in the preface to his edition of the Greek New Testament wrote that:
> 
> I would have the weakest woman read the Gospels and the Epistles of St Paul. I would have those words translated into all languages, so that not only Scots and Irishmen, but Turks and Saracens might read them. I long for the ploughboy to sing them to himself as he follows the plow, the weaver to hum them to the tune of his shuttle, the traveler to beguile with them the dullness of his journey.
> 
> ...


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Feb 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Dan...._
> This is especially important if the congregation is singing without the aid of instruments. Imagine having a different tune to all 150 psalms in irregular meters and requiring the congregation to sight read the notes while singing without instumental aid. - Chaos.



Actually, coming from the perspective of someone whose taught songs on Sunday morning, it's actually not that difficult to do, with or without instruments. 

What I find interesting is how people who hold to EP _think_ things would actually be with regular hymnody and how things _actually are_. 

....Carry On....


----------



## Kaalvenist (Feb 7, 2006)

I have actually, for several years now, wanted a Psalter including the 1650 Metrical Psalms, bound together with the prose Psalms of the KJV, set to music. Unfortunately, it doesn't exist. Yet.

I don't have a theological problem with the singing of either metrical Psalms or prose Psalms. I think that, in certain instances, I would probably prefer one over the other (as was previously mentioned, it's easier to sing the Psalms when you know only a few tunes, but all of the Psalms can be sung to those tunes; rather than learning a new tune for every Psalm).

Translating the Psalms into meter isn't necessary, but it can be rather helpful.


----------



## VictorBravo (Feb 7, 2006)

As an aside, I've been writing my own tunes to KJV Psalms as an aid to memory. The melody is not necessarily metric and there is no particular form like ABA, but, for some reason, I can memorize a medium-length psalm this way in less than a half hour.

Try it. (But I'd recommend avoiding jingle-type tunes). Maybe listen to some Bach or Brahms before starting. :bigsmile:

Vic


----------

