# 1976 CRC Blue Psalter Hymnal too paraphrased to be used for Exclusive Psalmody?



## psycheives (Jul 24, 2014)

I'm pro exclusive psalms but I go to a URC church that uses the 1976 CRC blue psalter hymnal. Many of the psalms are considered "paraphrases" but the handful of Psalms I have looked up are completely unrecognizable when compared to the actual scriptures. I couldn't even call some of these "paraphrases". Is this the point where we would say "you are no longer singing the Psalms and holding to the RPW" because you are using a translation akin to the Message Bible - where it doesn't say at all what the real passage says? 

Blue Psalter Hymnal, Psalm 103:
1) O God, be merciful, Be merciful to me, For man, with constant hate, would fain my ruin see. Many enemies against me proudly fight; to overwhelm my soul they watch from morn to night.

2) What time I am afraid I put my trust in Thee; In God I rest, and praise His word, so rich and free. In God I put my trust, I neither doubt nor fear, for man can never harm, with God my Helper near.
The Rest here: http://i60.tinypic.com/2djdvkn.jpg

ESV, Psalm 103:
1* Bless the LORD, O my soul, 
and all that is within me, 
bless his holy name! 
2* Bless the LORD, O my soul, 
and forget not all his benefits, 
3* who forgives all your iniquity, 
who heals all your diseases, 
4* who redeems your life from the pit, 
who crowns you with steadfast love and mercy, 
5* who satisfies you with good 
so that your youth is renewed like the eagle’s. 
6* The LORD works righteousness 
and justice for all who are oppressed. 
7* He made known his ways to Moses, 
his acts to the people of Israel. 
8* The LORD is merciful and gracious, 
slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love. 
9* He will not always chide, 
nor will he keep his anger forever. 
10* He does not deal with us according to our sins, 
nor repay us according to our iniquities. 
11* For as high as the heavens are above the earth, 
so great is his steadfast love toward those who fear him; 
12* as far as the east is from the west, 
so far does he remove our transgressions from us. 
13* As a father shows compassion to his children, 
so the LORD shows compassion to those who fear him. 
14* For he knows our frame; 
he remembers that we are dust. 
15* As for man, his days are like grass; 
he flourishes like a flower of the field; 
16* for the wind passes over it, and it is gone, 
and its place knows it no more. 
17* But the steadfast love of the LORD is from everlasting to everlasting on those who fear him, 
and his righteousness to children’s children, 
18* to those who keep his covenant 
and remember to do his commandments. 
19* The LORD has established his throne in the heavens, 
and his kingdom rules over all. 
20* Bless the LORD, O you his angels, 
you mighty ones who do his word, 
obeying the voice of his word! 
21* Bless the LORD, all his hosts, 
his ministers, who do his will! 
22* Bless the LORD, all his works, 
in all places of his dominion. 
Bless the LORD, O my soul!


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 24, 2014)

Psyche,
In the first place, please note that you are mistaking *selection* 103, _O God, Be Merciful,_ a *setting* of Ps.56 (see the designation *under* the selection number).

In the second place, there are a number of places even in the "stricter" Psalters-for-singing that paraphrase and condense some of the more repetitive vv. found in various places in the Psalter.

Nevertheless, the old CRC Psalter-Hymnal to which you refer (now used almost exclusively by the URC) does contain a number of selections that are noticeably periphrastic. You are not the first to make this observation. But still, it is a fairly good book; and with most of the selections you are able to make out which vv are being sung. Actually, I believe the 1912 Psalter (United Presbyterian) still used by a few generally smaller denominations, is quite periphrastic.

In order to provide the congregation with a particular v I want sung, sometimes I actually parse the portions of the stanzas, and have penciled in many of the v no.s.

The joint URC-OPC Psalter-Hymnal Psalms portion is very faithful; and like the RPCNA Psalters (past and present) prints tiny v numbers in the text. I hope this book is popular, when it is completed.


----------



## irresistible_grace (Jul 25, 2014)

> The joint URC-OPC Psalter-Hymnal Psalms portion is very faithful; and like the RPCNA Psalters (past and present) prints tiny v numbers in the text. I hope this book is popular, when it is completed



Is there a forecasted time of completion in the near future? They've been working on this for years & I've heard nothing about when they expect to complete this Psalter-Hymnal. Just curious since you mentioned it.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 25, 2014)

The Psalter portion has been completed, and according to the information I have, both of the denomination's highest judicatories have approved that portion. This portion was well along to completion by the OPC when the joint-venture was proposed (the URC also had begun their work in the Hymns portion of a similar project). The focus of the project has now turned to completing the hymn portion.

I won't speculate on the time needed for completion. Dr. Strange probably has a better idea. But overall, a lot of the work has been finished, and for that we may be thankful to God.


----------



## mvdm (Jul 25, 2014)

The completed OPC/URC Psalter Hymnal is targeted for approval at the URC Synod and OPC General Assembly in 2016.


----------



## psycheives (Jul 25, 2014)

Whew! My brother Bruce, I am so thankful for your insight into my misreading the Psalm number! Here are the real Psalm 103's for anyone who wants to compare. They are much better but still some words and phrases are added. http://www.zinyi.com/Scripts/Job1/Hymns/Hymns151-310.htm

So then, would you agree that we would say that we are singing the Psalms, but only as faithfully as the Psalm book we choose to sing accurately represents the scriptures? So if we used the Geneva Psalter, we would be more faithful to the RPW? But using the Blue Psalter Hymnal would be less faithful to the RPW because we MUST admit there are added phrases in every Psalm?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 25, 2014)

Sister,
I think it's helpful to remember first, that we are all "embedded" in a particular language-culture (language _is_ culture). There is no way--short of losing our unshakable belief in _translation_--for a typical American to sing a perfectly literal translation.

So, then the question becomes "What criteria define a _faithful_ representation of Scriptures?" Someone, somewhere, is going to say: "No rhyming allowed." Someone, somewhere is going to ask: "What's with this metrical garbage?" Unless we're going to sing right off the page of the Bible, some purist out there is going to fuss.

And so, there are some folks who think that the only allowable way of doing psalmody in church is monotone, unison chanting. It's the only way they can be sure they aren't inventing false worship. Most of us think that's extreme.

We think it's extreme because we understand the requirement to translate--which is more than simply bringing the words of one language into another. If we want to be able to sing from the heart, if becoming an ancient Israelite is impossible, we have to marry (in some reasonable fashion) the poetry and feeling of that day with my capacity for expression. Like all marriages, there needs to be some compromises from either side.

It may not sound "right" to our believing ears, saying that we might "compromise" the Word of God. However, we aren't trying to adulterate it; any more than a faithful Scripture translation is adulteration. That attitude is found among the Muslims, whose concept of purity refuses to recognize translations of their Koran as having authority, and who make all their adherents read their scriptures in Arabic.

Ordinary translations are a form of compromise--some better, some worse. They are _*accommodation*_ to the weaknesses of humanity, and _*allowance*_ to our varied culture and habits. Certain differences from the originally receptive language-culture should not be regarded as sin. Perhaps they are unfortunate (at some level), given the disturbance of Babel, Gen.11; but it is the Lord's intent that in every tongue he should be praised, Ps.67; Ps.117; Rom.15:11; Php.2:11.

It seems to me, the church needs to seek to put into the people's hands their best effort at helping the congregation (and individuals) put their heart into the song of Zion. And if for a time the most accessible means is something less than ideal--well, show me the "perfect" marriage.

The old Psalter-Hymnal has been a blessing, just like marriage--even with ups and downs--is properly speaking a blessing. If someone is wedded to the Geneva Psalter, because he thinks it is better, because he sings with it from his heart, I hope he isn't forced to give it up.

If we can be married to the sung-Psalter, regardless of its imperfections, then we can happily sing from whatever form it is presented. Our praise won't be perfected until glory. Until then, it is by entering into the praises of our Lord *as He sings* (Heb.2:12; Ps.22:22f), that our praise is perfected, Ps.8:2.


----------



## psycheives (Jul 25, 2014)

Thanks for your thoughtful response, Bruce. I think I understand  I hope you guys realize how much your contributions to PB help us. In this case, it helps a lot to reason against the challenges a brother was making in regards to my membership with the URC. He was arguing that if I was exclusive psalms, I could not faithfully continue to sing the Blue Hymnal because it was a paraphrase. Now I think I understand that any translation is a translation and some liberties are taken to make it understandable, flow, rhyme etc. Thanks so much!


----------



## nick (Jul 28, 2014)

The Psalms are translated into a language twice. They need a readable version and a singable version. The original Hebrew didn't have this issue.


----------



## Kaalvenist (Aug 17, 2014)

The CRC Psalter Hymnals (the Psalter portions, anyways) are based substantially upon "The Psalter" (1912), published originally by the UPCNA. It is still used in several Reformed denominations --- Protestant Reformed, Free Reformed, Heritage Reformed, Netherlands Reformed, etc. That particular Psalter is known for being probably one of the least accurate English-language Psalter versions used today. Of particular concern are its omission of verses, its smoothing over of proper names, its toning down of imprecations, etc. When one compares it with the 1887 UPCNA Psalter (the Psalter that the United Presbyterians were abandoning to adopt this one), or any other metrical Psalter used in Psalm-singing churches today, the objections regarding the difficulties of accurately translating into meter and verse tend to fall away. If you can find it, J.G. Vos' old article "Ashamed of the Tents of Shem?" was a not-so-subtle rebuke of the 1912 Psalter.

I see that you are at the Escondido URC. Carol Galloway (Jerry's wife) is my dad's cousin.


----------



## MichaelNZ (Aug 17, 2014)

I would argue that the Psalms in the Blue Psalter Hymnal are no more paraphrases than the metrical psalms in the Scottish and Genevan Psalters. Remember, the Psalms were originally written in metrical Hebrew, and are translated into prose in English Bibles. Because the Hebrew metre is different from the English, they cannot be easily sung (although the Independent Fundamental Baptist church I used to attend did sing Psalm 121 exactly as it is in the KJV). Therefore, they are put into singable form. As far as I know, every church that uses exclusive Psalmody uses either metrical Psalms or paraphrases.


----------



## Dearly Bought (Aug 17, 2014)

Kaalvenist said:


> If you can find it, J.G. Vos' old article "Ashamed of the Tents of Shem?" was a not-so-subtle rebuke of the 1912 Psalter.


"Ashamed of the Tents of Shem?" by J.G. Vos


----------



## Jake (Aug 17, 2014)

Michael, can you expand on how the psalms are in meter in Hebrew? I had always heard that they are not, or at least not most.


----------



## Jake (Aug 17, 2014)

To expand on this, Michael.

As far as I knew, the features of Hebrew poetry are remarkably easy to translate to English, as the features used tend to be translatable to other tongues, such as repetition and parallelism. There are some features we miss in English, such as in Psalm 119. However, meter is not a feature of Hebrew poetry.

Even if it were, I don't see how converting between meters changes the accuracy of the Psalm. Whether a psalm is in common meter or long meter, for example, doesn't necessarily change how accurate it is to the text. This is much different from deleting phrases from the text, adding phrases to the text, or generalizing specific names and places as does the 1912 Psalter.


----------



## Kaalvenist (Aug 17, 2014)

MichaelNZ said:


> I would argue that the Psalms in the Blue Psalter Hymnal are no more paraphrases than the metrical psalms in the Scottish and Genevan Psalters.


Please read again what I said:


Kaalvenist said:


> Of particular concern are its omission of verses, its smoothing over of proper names, its toning down of imprecations, etc.


If you can find instances of these things in the Scottish Psalter, you might have a case. Accuracy in translation is (or ought to be) concerned with the words (rather than the meter) of David, etc. (2 Chron. 29:30).


----------

