Chanting the Psalms vs singing a paraphrase

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think that is fair. Unique to the Psalms is a command to sing them and accordingly our translation philosophy must bear that in mind. Indeed, the Psalms are treated in the NT both as a book of prayer and prophecy to be read and studied as well as a book of hymnody to be sung. That being the case, I think two different translations are entirely appropriate--a reading form and a singing form. Both should be literal in the sense of carefully translating the words of the text, but the forms are different. I do think all Hebrew poetry ought to give consideration to rendering them in a less wooden, prosaic form, but those other sections are nevertheless meant to be read instead of sung and that impacts how we use them and translate them. Sometimes I do read the 1650 Psalter when reading through the Psalms so that I don't forget that they are, in fact, songs, but I will usually have a standard translation present to to consult where the metrical version is unclear or awkward for me.

Thank you for explaining. I still think that we're hung up on what makes poetry poetry. Certainly there is much beautiful English language poetry that is neither in rhyme or meter. It seems that to insist we need a less accurate translation to accommodate singing is biased towards very traditional poetry and song. I think many of our translations (consider KJV) to be poetically beautiful in it's rendering of the original language. Wouldn't it be better to accommodate our singing to the Bible, not the Bible to our singing?

Below is an instrumental accompaniment my church uses to sing Psalm 138. It is verbatim and most of the congregation either sings it by memory or they follow along in their NKJV Bible.

 
http://llpb.us/Canticles-Psalms-Ants.htm

I am going on a level of assumption here that would seem logical in that the temple singing were most likely 'chants'. Given that the paraphrasing of most translations do not mirror the actual placement of words in God's word, is not this paraphrasing much akin to hymnody?

For those who are EP like myself, do you not see this as a thorn in the EP argument; especially in light of the option to actually chant the actual words of God, in the order they have been prescribed?

*As I was typing, I thought that for any of this to be whittled down to the most appropriate method would be to do as they do in Jewish worship where they sing in actual Hebrew. Though I believe, and am not positive, but I believe Jews still follow temple worship and use a cantor for song.
Just when I start to try and conclude you have to go and do this:confused:
 
That's what some of us are not saying.

I'm sorry, but I thought that we were considering the Psalms in rhyme and meter to me a less accurate rendering of the Hebrew words-- a somewhat accurate paraphrase more conducive for singing. Am I mistaken? Please help me phrase in a way we can all agree with accounting for all the facts.

Thanks for your help!
 
Just when I start to try and conclude you have to go and do this:confused:
Grant, it's really just an in-house discussion. The Reformed churches have honored chanting the Psalms, but for corporate worship, the Reformation gave them to us in metrical form. That's what we've inherited and it's good. We are singing the Psalms when we sing from a good psalter. But it's interesting to explore chant as well, which would be a private exercise, unless a denomination were to adopt it as public practice. (I'm sure others could say all this better.)
 
I'm sorry, but I thought that we were considering the Psalms in rhyme and meter to me a less accurate rendering of the Hebrew words-- a somewhat accurate paraphrase more conducive for singing. Am I mistaken? Please help me phrase in a way we can all agree with accounting for all the facts.

Thanks for your help!
Tim, the assertion that the metrical form is necessarily less accurate due to using words and rearranging words differently from the original languages, has been argued to be inaccurate, because any translation, including our Bibles, must do the same thing in being translated into English. English uses a lot more words to say the same thing. If you hold to the mediate inspiration of the Scriptures, it removes that as an issue in using metrical forms to sing the Psalms. There may be other issues to discuss, but it removes uncertainty about whether translating into a metrical form can be considered a true translation.
 
I really wish someone would answer the question as to if we are to consider the paraphrased translations of the Psalter as mediately inspired.
 
Grant, it's really just an in-house discussion. The Reformed churches have honored chanting the Psalms, but for corporate worship, the Reformation gave them to us in metrical form. That's what we've inherited and it's good. We are singing the Psalms when we sing from a good psalter. But it's interesting to explore chant as well, which would be a private exercise, unless a denomination were to adopt it as public practice. (I'm sure others could say all this better.)
Thanks I was trying to me a little funny. As with any new doctrinal stance..often times my brain feels like scrambled eggs after studying. Lately I have been trying to "soak" in understanding EP/AO and just as I was trying to make a conclusion and to take a break...Scott has to go and further take my scrambled egg brains through a meat grinder!
 
Last edited:
Thanks I was trying to me a little funny. As with any new doctrinal stance..often times my brain feels like scrambled eggs after studying. Lately I have been trying to "bath" in understanding EP/AO and just as I was trying to make a conclusion and to take a break...Scott has to go further COOK my scrambled egg brains!
I know! He made me think and I don't have time for that!! :)
 
Tim, the assertion that the metrical form is necessarily less accurate due to using words and rearranging words differently from the original languages, has been argued to be inaccurate, because any translation, including our Bibles, must do the same thing in being translated into English. English uses a lot more words to say the same thing. If you hold to the mediate inspiration of the Scriptures, it removes that as an issue in using metrical forms to sing the Psalms. There may be other issues to discuss, but it removes uncertainty about whether translating into a metrical form can be considered a true translation.

Jeri, I hear you. However, this is not simply a matter of translation into the English. The English translation has far fewer words than the English metric "translation." In fact, I think the NIV is far more accurate then most, if not all metrical renditions. It seems difficult to hold to verbal plenary inspiration when there is an addition of so many words in the "translation."

Please understand that I'm not trying to be argumentative. This has been a huge hang up for me in even understanding EP issue from their perspective.

Thanks again for your help!
 
If one says, 'No. They are not mediately inspired', thats a big problem as then we are importing man made song into our worship and no better than those that sing hymns; If we say 'yes they are', that may be another can of worms as well as we are rearranging words, adding words, rearranging the bibles chronology of the psalms, cutting out a section of scripture and placing it in a single book like the Gideons do with their NT bibles.
 
If one says, 'No. They are not mediately inspired', thats a big problem as then we are importing man made song into our worship and no better than those that sing hymns; If we say 'yes they are', that may be another can of worms as well as we are rearranging words, adding words, rearranging the bibles chronology of the psalms, cutting out a section of scripture and placing it in a single book like the Gideons do with their NT bibles.
Scott,

Are you advocating that those who are EP should no longer use the metrical Psalter, but rather should attempt some form of chanting in Corporate Worship? I am just trying to understand.
 
Grant,
I am not...not just yet. I am only probing the data. When I became EP, it was simply based on prudence alone; it seems logical to me to use the actual bible to sing, given its security, is more prudent than singing a paraphrased Psalter. Unless, someone can convince me that the paraphrased Psalter is mediately inspired.
 
I really wish someone would answer the question as to if we are to consider the paraphrased translations of the Psalter as mediately inspired.
Didn't I see somewhere in this thread or another one referred to that Rev. Win did say that?
Jeri, I hear you. However, this is not simply a matter of translation into the English. The English translation has far fewer words than the English metric "translation." In fact, I think the NIV is far more accurate then most, if not all metrical renditions. It seems difficult to hold to verbal plenary inspiration when there is an addition of so many words in the "translation."

Please understand that I'm not trying to be argumentative. This has been a huge hang up for me in even understanding EP issue from their perspective.

Thanks again for your help!
I think you either have to allow that mediate inspiration allows for translation into a metrical form, or not. (Again, am I saying this right.) To me, it does. If adding or rearranging words and phrases is permissible at all to get to an accurate translation (and we agree it's not only permissible but necessary), then you can't just knee-jerk reject metrical translations from having the quality of inspiration, just because they must add and rearrange a bit more. The issue is, do they convey the Scripture.
 
The issue is, do they convey the Scripture.

For example, 'The Message' bible (if u want to call it that) is a paraphrased bible. Most all of us would burn it. However, given what u say above, Jeri, does the Message convey the scripture? I would say, some parts convey truth; as a whole, it is a mess.
 
Grant,
I am not...not just yet. I am only probing the data. When I became EP, it was simply based on prudence alone; it seems logical to me to use the actual bible to sing, given its security, is more prudent than singing a paraphrased Psalter. Unless, someone can convince me that the paraphrased Psalter is mediately inspired.
Scott, are you still concerned about the addition and rearranging of words? Not convinced by the fact that all English translations must do this from the Hebrew?
 
Jeri,
Maybe I am beating a dead horse...we have the Psalter as it was translated into various forms; why didn't the translators of this sacred text, take into consideration that the Psalter was a songbook and include the metering and wording and include it in those translations? Is it because it is faulty or not up to par for a regular bible? Does that concern u? It seems to bother me.
 
Thank you for explaining. I still think that we're hung up on what makes poetry poetry. Certainly there is much beautiful English language poetry that is neither in rhyme or meter. It seems that to insist we need a less accurate translation to accommodate singing is biased towards very traditional poetry and song. I think many of our translations (consider KJV) to be poetically beautiful in it's rendering of the original language. Wouldn't it be better to accommodate our singing to the Bible, not the Bible to our singing?

Below is an instrumental accompaniment my church uses to sing Psalm 138. It is verbatim and most of the congregation either sings it by memory or they follow along in their NKJV Bible.

Tim,

I assume this is you playing? If so, the playing is quite beautiful (said in the manliest voice possible).:detective:
 
I really wish someone would answer the question as to if we are to consider the paraphrased translations of the Psalter as mediately inspired.
Okay, I'll answer. Yes, a good one--like the 1650--are as mediately inspired as the prose versions. If you were in an EP church, you would see the metrical versions treated as much as the word of God as anything (but this should be true even in a non-EP church that believes we are commanded to sing the psalms). I disagree with characterizing all the metrical versions as "paraphrased" or "inaccurate" or "twisting" the word of God, but even if that were so: the meanest translation of the word of God is still the word of God.
 
For example, 'The Message' bible (if you want to call it that) is a paraphrased bible. Most all of us would burn it. However, given what you say above, Jeri, does the Message convey the scripture? I would say, some parts convey truth; as a whole, it is a mess.
No, I don't think any serious person would say it's a translation of the scripture.

But keep in mind what was said about "paraphrase" as used in the 17th century and how we use the word today. Read the preface to the Scottish psalter. I believe those men believed they were creating a true translation of Scripture, and if so, then believed that it was mediately inspired. Don't know if they had that terminology.
 
Jeri,
Maybe I am beating a dead horse...we have the Psalter as it was translated into various forms; why didn't the translators of this sacred text, take into consideration that the Psalter was a songbook and include the metering and wording and include it in those translations? Is it because it is faulty or not up to par for a regular bible? Does that concern you? It seems to bother me.

I would say yes, the psalter is mediately inspired as is the LXX. Would you want to use the LXX (assuming you spoke koine Greek) if you had better translations available?
 
Also, even though I disagree with EP, my challenges here have nothing to do with my disagreement. If there is any merit to my arguments, they would not of themselves challenge EP.
 
Ramon,
Thanks for your reply. U write:
" Yes, a good one--like the 1650"

How about the Book of Psalms for Worship or the Trinity Psalter?
 
Jeri,
Maybe I am beating a dead horse...we have the Psalter as it was translated into various forms; why didn't the translators of this sacred text, take into consideration that the Psalter was a songbook and include the metering and wording and include it in those translations? Is it because it is faulty or not up to par for a regular bible? Does that concern you? It seems to bother me.
Maybe simply because their aim was not a translation for singing, which requires different skills, and they left that for others.(?)
What was already in place for singing Psalms at the time of the Tyndale and Geneva (Calvin’s?) and KJV translations? I don’t know my church history on those issues well enough.:deadhorse::deadhorse:
 
Translating prosaic passages of Scripture to English requires rearranging the words as well because the languages have different grammar. Words must be added, subtracted, and rearranged and even slavish, word-for-word translations have to do this as words in different languages have different semantic ranges and are never exact equivalents. The KJV certainly did. As long as the translation is careful and the thoughts are presented in order, I don't see this as a problem for psalmody any more than it is a problem for the public reading of the Scriptures.

I'm also not convinced that the OT worship maintained a distinction between singing and chanting such as we would have today. They used melodic instruments in temple worship and both singing and playing of the singers and musicians was required to be "skillful" and necessitated training. It certainly didn't follow Western rules of meter and melody, of course, but I think more is made of the issue in some corners than should be.

Exactly. No translation can mirror the original language exactly, for the reasons you mention: the grammar and syntax of different languages work differently. Therefore, exact one-to-one translations are impossible, if you want the translation to make good sense.

Also, why are some folks assuming that chanting of the Psalms was used in the OT? The relevant texts say they sang. Singing is not chanting. Seems to me if the EPers want to take up chanting, they need to go out and buy some Gregorian Chant CDs, so they can see just how boring chanting is, compared with singing.
 
If one says, 'No. They are not mediately inspired', thats a big problem as then we are importing man made song into our worship and no better than those that sing hymns; If we say 'yes they are', that may be another can of worms as well as we are rearranging words, adding words, rearranging the bibles chronology of the psalms, cutting out a section of scripture and placing it in a single book like the Gideons do with their NT bibles.

With all due respect, this is the problem with the whole EP position. Once one gets down to the grinding details like these, no one knows quite what to do.
 
it seems logical to me to use the actual bible to sing, given its security, is more prudent than singing a paraphrased Psalter.

Admittedly, I am not EP and so perhaps I have no real say in this matter. But for the sake of mutual edification, and because I'm curious about your answer, allow me to lob in one question from the outside.

If you are trying to be as prudent and safe as possible to not stray from God's commands, why are you willing to go into gray area regarding the command to sing? The command that we sing is exceedingly clear in Scripture, at least as clear as any commands about exactly what we sing. And several of the headings to the psalms suggest they are to be used with tunes and melodies. So, one could argue that what you propose is being nitpicky about the content while playing loose with the more fundamental command to sing.

Of course, there are cultures (particularly those with tonal languages) in which a chant is considered identical to a song. But our culture really is not one of those. So allow me to suggest that your admirable desire to be rigorous and safe about content should be matched with a desire to be rigorous and safe when it comes to form. Might your proposal be settling for "close enough" when it comes to the command to sing?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top