I have recently been talking with a friend from church about why I believe the 1650 Scottish Psalter to be such an excellent psalter. Just in terms of translation faithfulness, I mentioned to him the preface to the psalter with many distinguished scholars (Owen, Watson, Poole, Manton, etc) signing that they believe the psalter to be a very faithful translation. (And, of course, the Westminster Assembly was involved in the preliminary work)
However, my friend brought up an argument that I don't know how to address since I don't know original languages. My friend mentioned to me an article written by Dr. Bob Copeland entitled "The Story of the 1973 (RPCNA) Psalter" about why the RPCNA left using the Scottish Psalter (a common meter psalter) over a hundred years ago:
How can I address this argument? Would the best way to address it be to say that "the Hebrew meter isn't inspired, but the text is"?
However, my friend brought up an argument that I don't know how to address since I don't know original languages. My friend mentioned to me an article written by Dr. Bob Copeland entitled "The Story of the 1973 (RPCNA) Psalter" about why the RPCNA left using the Scottish Psalter (a common meter psalter) over a hundred years ago:
The selection of metres (stanza structures) for new translations posed an interesting problem. The Hebrew poetry in which the Psalms were originally written in characterized by parallel thought couplets which are not metrical and do not rhyme. The length of lines in each couplet varies; some of the Psalms have quite short lines in the Hebrew, some have rather long lines. The general use of common or ballad metre in the old Scottish Psalter thus involves stretching or condensing Hebrew thoughts, or else a total blurring of the Hebrew poetic form. Therefore, the committee for the 1973 Psalter consciously attempted to choose poetic metres which reflect the Hebrew structure more accurately. For example, Psalm 66, containing 14 common-metre stanzas, was recast in five longer stanzas (887.887.48.48) to fit the 15th-century Lutheran tune wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern; in this form it more nearly reflects the thought patterns, line lengths and structure of the Hebrew original.
How can I address this argument? Would the best way to address it be to say that "the Hebrew meter isn't inspired, but the text is"?