Best Psalter (For accuracy/precision to Original Text and Singability)

[Romans922]

I have seen problems with the Trinity Psalter. Translations aren't always that accurate and no music to see it can be hard for some to sing.

What do you believe to be the best Psalter based on translation from the original Hebrew and singability (is it not a gregorian chant and is there music with it to follow)?

 

[Guido's Brother]

I'm still partial to the Anglo-Genevan Psalter. Try it, you might like it. If it was good enough for Calvin, it's good enough for me.

 

[christianhope]

The 1650 Scottish Metrical Psalter, most definitely. Check out David Silversides message on the subject: SermonAudio.com - Why we should use the Scottish Psalter

Also, see this tract produced by the James Begg society in support of the 1650 Psalter: http://www.jbeggsoc.org.uk/ I can't seem to direct the link to the specific page, so, I'll just paste the tract here below.

The Scottish Metrical Version of the Psalms, 1650
by Philip Rainey


Do we appreciate what a treasure we have in the Scottish Psalter of 1650? Just as the Authorised Version of the Bible did not appear in a vacuum but was the perfecting of a textual tradition revived at the time of the Reformation, so the Scottish Metrical Version of the Psalms was the ripest fruit of a long and painstaking labour to produce in the English language an accurate versification of the church's manual of praise.

P SALM-SINGING has been a feature of the Presbyterian and Reformed Churches. As Reformed Christians we believe that the worship of God is not left to man's imagination but is regulated by God Himself. This is what we call the Regulative Principle: God makes known in His Word how His people are to worship Him. But even those of us who accept this principle and sing only the Psalms, do we ever stop to think about the Psalter – the version of the Psalms – which we use? It is a sad fact that all too many Reformed Christians today do not. We fail to appreciate the treasure we hold in our hands, when we worship God, in the form of the Scottish Metrical Version of the Psalms. This short article is an attempt to rectify this failure.
1. Historical Background

The Scottish Metrical Version of 1650 (S.M.V.) has a noble pedigree. It can trace its lineage right back to the Protestant Reformation and to the very first Psalters of the Reformation. This is one of the reasons why Presbyterians ought to value their Psalter. This point is confirmed by the fact that some of the versions in our Psalter were carried over from the Reformation Psalters.

In 1539 John Calvin printed nineteen Psalms in Strasbourg. This was the Strasbourg Psalter, the fountain-head from which Reformed Psalmody flowed forth. It was the Reformer's desire to give the people their rightful place in worship which the Romish Church had denied them. When Calvin returned to Geneva he saw to it that the Psalter was completed, as it was in 1562.

Calvin's Geneva became a refuge for those persecuted for their faith during the reign of Mary Tudor (1553-1558). One of these was the Scottish Reformer John Knox, who along with other exiles produced a Book of Order for use in the English Congregation at Geneva. This included fifty-one Psalms, this number growing to eighty-seven in the third edition of the Psalter. This Psalter is known as the Anglo-Genevan Psalter. The preface to the Psalter makes it clear how it was the Reformers' concern to translate the Psalms as literally as possible. Bearing in mind they had some Psalm-versions already to hand, they say:

"In this our Enterprise we did only set God before our Eyes; and therefore weighed the Words and Sense of the Prophet, rather considering the Meaning thereof than what any Man had written. And chiefly being in this Place, where as most perfect and godly judgment did assure us, and Exhortations to the same encourage us, we thought it better to frame the Rhyme to the Hebrew Sense, than binde the Sense to the English Meeter."

The eighty-seven versions of the third edition of the Anglo-Genevan Psalter were the basis for the First Scottish Psalter. Knox brought these Psalms back with him from Geneva and in 1562 the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland directed that the Psalter should be completed. The Psalter was completed in 1564, it being the direct forbear of our present Psalter.

Our present Psalter (S.M.V., 1650) arose our of the conviction that although the Psalter of 1564 was a faithful translation of the original, its variety of metre was too difficult for the common people. As a consequence of the Second Scottish Reformation it was decided to reform religion in the three kingdoms, hence the Westminster Assembly of Divines 1643-47. The Westminster Assembly produced a new Psalter which was a revision of one by Francis Rous. But before accepting it the Kirk subjected it to a thorough examination and revision taking some two years and four months. The result was our present Psalter, the S.M.V. of 1650.
2. Appraisal

There are three things we may say in appraisal of the S.M.V. of 1650.
Faithfulness to the Original

The most important point about our Psalter is its faithfulness to the original Scripture. Unlike modern Psalters the S.M.V. is not a paraphrase, but a translation. This is the case with all the Reformation Psalters. We have already noted the attitude of Knox and his associates to the translation of the Psalms. Consciously and deliberately our Reformed forefathers produced translations of the Psalms. The fact that they were translations into verse (or metre) does not mean paraphrase. What it does mean is contraction and dilation of Hebrew words and phrases. For example the contraction of: "For he hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted" to "For he despis'd not nor abhorr'd th' afflicted's misery" Psalm 22:24. The preservation of the force of the Hebrew is the outstanding feature of our Psalter and the reason why we should prefer it above all others.
Authorisation

The S.M.V. received the sanction of the civil power in 1650 as well as that of the Church. This sanction, which excluded the use of any other version in Scotland, was confirmed by the Revolution Settlement of 1688-90 which re-established Presbyterianism in Scotland.
Unity in Doctrine and Worship

The S.M.V. has been a powerful force for liturgical and doctrinal unity in both Scotland and Ireland where it alone was the Church's songbook for over two centuries. It is surely no accident that when the Churches began to produce their own revisions we have seen "individualism" win the day with the Presbyterian Churches each having their own Psalter, and worse still in some cases their own collections of uninspired songs.
3. Conclusion

What then ought we to do? It is our fervent hope that if you are a member of a church which still uses the S.M.V. of 1650 you will have a greater appreciation of the spiritual treasure you hold in your hands. You may be sure that when you sing praise from it you sing the words of God. And you need not be ashamed of its connections. This is truly a Reformed Psalter. These were the songs of the martyrs, the songs of our Reformed and Presbyterian forefathers. May God grant that they will continue to be our songs today.

 

[Willem van Oranje]

I'm still partial to the Anglo-Genevan Psalter. Try it, you might like it. If it was good enough for Calvin, it's good enough for me.

I will say that the Genevan Psalms lose something in English translation, due to the music having been written in a way to accentuate and conincide with the flow of the French lyrics, which is sometimes in a completely different word order from the Anglo-Psalter.

 

[N. Eshelman]

The 1650 is not very singable in my opinion. It also is not in the vulgar tongue of the people, which is a Reformed principle for the interpretation of God's Word.

Also, The Anglo Genevan is not a translation from the Hebrew- it is a translation from the French or Dutch, right??

Now I am not saying that RP Psalters are the best- I am sure that there are many good and singable Psalters- but one thing that must be answered before you answer your questions:

What principles go into the making of a Psalter?

This will direct your search for a good Psalter.

 

[PointyHaired Calvinist]

Isn't the Trinity Psalter just a words-only version of the RPCNA Book of Psalms for Singing? We use it in our church and while I think it is good, the missing music is something of a downer - kind of a strange blend of Old-Line Psalm Singing and modern lyrics-only P&W.

From what I've seen, I prefer the 1912 UP Psalter, but I haven't looked at the 1650 Scottish in-depth. The Blue Psalter Hymnal Psalms I've also found to be edifying, but I think I've seen a few where the complete Psalm isn't there.

 

[au5t1n]

Scottish, since you ruled out chanting.

 

[TexanRose]

I vote for the 1650 Scottish Psalter. I would say that the 1650 is more singable than the RPCNA Psalter, which has some awkward phrasing in my opinion. In terms of beauty and singability, I like the Dutch Psalter (CRC?) almost as well as the 1650, but it's definitely not as accurate.

 

[N. Eshelman]

Singability from the 1650:

Psalm 18:26

"Pure to the pure, thou froward kyth'st
unto the froward wight"

 

[Guido's Brother]

Also, The Anglo Genevan is not a translation from the Hebrew- it is a translation from the French or Dutch, right??

No. The latest revision of our Psalter was produced in consultation with the Hebrew. Earlier versions were as well, but occasionally were not as closely tied to the original as one might like. But whatever it is, it's not a translation of French or Dutch. Not at all.

---------- Post added at 03:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:02 PM ----------

I'm still partial to the Anglo-Genevan Psalter. Try it, you might like it. If it was good enough for Calvin, it's good enough for me.

I will say that the Genevan Psalms lose something in English translation, due to the music having been written in a way to accentuate and conincide with the flow of the French lyrics, which is sometimes in a completely different word order from the Anglo-Psalter.

Which edition of the Anglo-Genevan Psalter are you referring to? 1984 or the 2007-2009?

 

[Willem van Oranje]

I share your love of the 1650 Scottish Psalter, which is an excellent metrical translation of the Psalms, and well-adapted to singing. I sing from it daily. The other Psalters which have been published since then may also claim a like carefulness of translation, in the church, for example the Book of Psalms for Singing, the Psalter, and the Trinity Psalter which is based on the Book of Psalms for Singing, were all painstakingly translated from the Hebrew by a church or a coalition of churches. These also have a godly heritage.

 

[christianhope]

Singability from the 1650:

Psalm 18:26

"Pure to the pure, thou froward kyth'st
unto the froward wight"

Why, I've sang that tons of times! It is true, there are a few words that the 1650 has in it that are "well aged" but really there aren't that many, and for anyone that is serious about singing an accurate translation, the 1650 can't be beat. You can often determine the meaning of the word simply by looking at your KJV translation of that same verse. Unlike some psalters that don't have the verse literally translated or numbered, the 1650 scottish metrical psalter can often be discerned on a word for word basis, making it easy to compare with the KJV. It is also quite singable in my opinion, I have many of them memorized and have been greatly edified by them. I'm thankful in knowing that when I sing the 1650 psalter I can be confident I'm singing God's Word unmixed.

 

[N. Eshelman]

Singability from the 1650:

Psalm 18:26

"Pure to the pure, thou froward kyth'st
unto the froward wight"

Why, I've sang that tons of times! It is true, there are a few words that the 1650 has in it that are "well aged" but really there aren't that many, and for anyone that is serious about singing an accurate translation, the 1650 can't be beat. You can often determine the meaning of the word simply by looking at your KJV translation of that same verse. Unlike some psalters that don't have the verse literally translated or numbered, the 1650 scottish metrical psalter can often be discerned on a word for word basis, making it easy to compare with the KJV. It is also quite singable in my opinion, I have many of them memorized and have been greatly edified by them. I'm thankful in knowing that when I sing the 1650 psalter I can be confident I'm singing God's Word unmixed.

Josh, I appreciate the text being given as well- unlike the UP Psalter 1912, or the variations that found their way in the Dutch churches. The RP tradition has kept alive writing out the versification as well in the Psalm book. I really appreciate that. As my
children memorize the psalms they know where they can look in the Scriptures to see it in verse as well.

My biggest problem with the 1650 (which is a great translation) is that it is not in English that is accessible to most non-Christians. When one becomes a Christian he should not have to learn the Queen's tongue to participate in the means of grace.... I get this is controversial here, but I firmly believe our Presbyterian principle of translation says: 1. Accurate to the Greek and Hebrew 2. In the common language of the people.

The more I studied these principles of translation the more difficulty I had with our archaic, yet wonderful possessions as the Reformed Church. The 1650 Psalter being one of them.

 

[JM]

I have a 1650 in my AV from TBS and use it for devotionals. It is a powerful Psalter.

 

[Glenn Ferrell]

Half of all Psalm selections at SRPC are from the 1650 Psalms of David in Metre. The others are taken from the RPCNA Book of Psalms for Worship, the newer Free Church of Scotland's Sing Psalms, or Presbyterian Church of East Australia's The Complete Book of Psalms for Singing.

 

[N. Eshelman]

Half of all Psalm selections at SRPC are from the 1650 Psalms of David in Metre. The others are taken from the RPCNA Book of Psalms for Worship, the newer Free Church of Scotland's Sing Psalms, or Presbyterian Church of East Australia's The Complete Book of Psalms for Singing.

We always knew you were an ecumenical!

 

[TexanRose]

Singability from the 1650:

Psalm 18:26

"Pure to the pure, thou froward kyth'st
unto the froward wight"

Hmmm...I would much rather have antiquated but poetic instead of modern and painfully...well, less poetic. LOL

Also, the RPCNA Psalter still uses thees and thous, right? So I'm not seeing how it's really all that much more "accessible." Anyway, I would argue that while few people know the "Queen's English," as you put it, well enough to speak it, most can figure out the meaning as they are reading it.

Furthermore, my experience with the RPCNA Psalter was that some of the tunes, for whatever reason, were not as well-liked. Other tunes seemed oddly chosen--for instance, really upbeat, cheerful tunes applied to mournful or imprecatory psalms. The result of the tune issues was that certain psalms were rarely, if ever, sung. That's a huge problem, in my opinion! When the psalm is not tied to a particular tune, these problems can be avoided.

I haven't seen the latest edition of the RPCNA Psalter, though, so maybe some of those problems have been corrected.

I will admit that my opinions of various psalters have probably been influenced by how well I have heard them sung.

 

[Tim]

My biggest problem with the 1650 (which is a great translation) is that it is not in English that is accessible to most non-Christians. When one becomes a Christian he should not have to learn the Queen's tongue to participate in the means of grace.... I get this is controversial here, but I firmly believe our Presbyterian principle of translation says: 1. Accurate to the Greek and Hebrew 2. In the common language of the people.

Is it that the language isn't accessible, or that people aren't willing to learn a few definitions of the "old" words? This is NOT meant to be an argumentative comment.

My thought is that if the 1650 (or similar older Psalters) is indeed the most faithful rendering of the Hebrew (and we may debate this on the PB, of course), then ought we not put in the effort to learn a few things about the language as it is used in this Psalter, that it might become accessible and more easily apprehended?

---------- Post added at 04:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:40 AM ----------

I did not grow up reading the KJV or singing from the 1650. But I have been using these most recently in my own study and worship and have been greatly blessed by my efforts. It was well worth it.

 

[sonlight]

I had to google this one. I have never heard of a psalter before. Silly me, I was going to say where's the pepperer?
I see that it is the book of psalms and I saw the magic word metrical and then I thought, wait.. this clicks a bit. I remembered where I had seen this before. I got the electronic version of the Geneva Bible when I got it and on the cd there is a file called metrical psalms. I opened the file once and was rather confused as it said something about the notes and singing the pslams and this I had never heard of and I saw no notes. I am not sure if the notes would have helped. I can read music a bit having taken a bit of music lessons as a child but when I try to sing, dogs howl in pain and neighborhood cats run away scared. To say I am tone deaf is an understatement. I can't carry a tune in a five gallon bucket. I do the best I can in church out of the hymnal and only wish it would sound better as it is meant for the glory of God in a spirit of worship. I'm sure God understands. I learned something today. That's a good thing. So, since I only know of one psalter... I'll throw it in for consideration. 1599 Geneva Bible from Tolle Lege on the cd... I am not sure what the exact title is beyond metrical psalms. Sorry I is such a dummy but maybe that information might be of use to someone and I might not know it, or I might be as dense as a concrete sidewalk.

 

[nnatew24]

I don't know if this helps, but the Associate Reformed Presbyterian church (Associate Reformed Presbyterian Worship) is coming out with a modern language version of the Trinity Psalter based on the Book of Psalms for worship, but it will be in a format similar to the Trinity Psalter.