1650 Scottish Psalter & Hebrew text - help with argument against 1650 psalter

Status
Not open for further replies.

nwink

Puritan Board Sophomore
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:

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"?
 
I don't have time to address it right now, but I will make one observation: Hebrew poetry doesn't really have metre. It is built around types of rhetorical couplets.

Sent from my Super Duper Android OS Micro-computer Talking Device using Two Tired Thumbs and Tapatalk.
 
Unless one is going to chant the Psalms (an acceptable option), one must make some accommodation for translating into regular meter. It is impossible to capture the line length of the Hebrew text in any regular English meter.

If one compares the plain text translation of an English translation (I recommend the AV as it is contemporary with the 1650), he will find each idea faithfully represented in the 1650 metrical version.

Common meter may be monotonous at times (the 1650 does have some Psalms in other meters); but it is useful having a CM version of every Psalm. With a couple dozen CM tunes memorized, one has the ability to sing the entire Psalter with simple tunes. Too often, more modern Psalters use unfamiliar and difficult tunes beyond the ability of an average congregation.

The 1650 remains my favorite Psalter.
 
Nathan,

These are some pretty good arguments so far. Here is my best...

"So the 1973 RPCNA Psalter committee had a better knowledge of Hebrew than John Adamson, Thomas Crawford, John Row, John Neavy, Samuel Rutherford, Hugh McKail, George Hutcheson, James Guthrie, George Gillespie and John Livingstone?

Yeah, right."

The 1650 Psalter was reviewed, re-reviewed and re-re-reviewd by men who were experts in the Hebrew language and giants of the faith. A very good analysis of this can be found here by the Rev. David Silversides.
 
I think they are both great Psalters. I second Mark that to say that the endorsements of some of those great men mean a lot. I am just thankful that men seek to use a good psalter period. It doesn't happen very often. Since I think they are both good psalters, I commend him for desiring to use it. However, I don't think he should be downgrading the 1650. I think the guys who edited the 1650 knew what they were doing and were plenty smart enough to do a good job.
 
From The True Psalmody

“It were well, indeed, could the fidelity of this [Scottish] version be combined with a more entire exemption from the minor faults which attach to it. But, in the meantime, we would, with myriads of the saints of God, prefer to have the Word of God as the matter of our praise, rather than the most flowing and smooth of mere human utterances.”
 
When making a prose translation of the Psalter (in ordinary versions of the Bible), where is the attention and priority placed? Upon the accuracy in conveying the meaning of the words themselves, not the "meter." It should be acknowledged by all that the poetic forms of Hebrew (or Greek) might get "lost in translation" -- but the essential thing is, not that we sing the poetic forms of David and Asaph, but "the WORDS of David, and of Asaph the seer" (2 Chron. 29:30). For example: When translating Psalm 119 (or any other Psalm or chapter which is formed upon an acrostic of the Hebrew alphabet), how many think it essential to accurately convey that element of the Hebrew?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top