New Psalter
- Thread starter uberkermit
- Start date
- Status
shackleton
Puritan Board Junior
What are the thoughts of people who will be using this and putting in more of the language of the people?
wturri78
Puritan Board Freshman
This is the first I'd heard of it, but I find the wording of some of the current Psalms to be quite awkward. I hope that this new work won't create too many rifts among believers--those who've grown up on the "thee's" and "thou's"--and those who are new to the Psalter who will find the modern language to sound far less stand-offish.
Personally, I'm all for keeping language up to date so long as the meaning can be preserved. Eventually we all end up translating the archaic language in our heads anyway. At least I do!
Personally, I'm all for keeping language up to date so long as the meaning can be preserved. Eventually we all end up translating the archaic language in our heads anyway. At least I do!
N. Eshelman
Puritan Board Senior
I am looking forward to the new Psalter. I am also happy about the fact that it is all in modern language.
The one thing that I do not like is that they have taken out all the Jehovah's. LORD will be in its place at all points.
The one thing that I do not like is that they have taken out all the Jehovah's. LORD will be in its place at all points.
Backwoods Presbyterian
Puritanboard Amanuensis
Really? I look forward to seeing it at Synod.
This has been in the works for a long time. I Remember my RPCNA Pastor being very interested in some of the discussion concerning Formal Equivalence vs. Dynamic Equivalence discussion about the NIV based upon the project. That was about 20 years ago. I will get one.
Kaalvenist
Puritan Board Sophomore
Let me be the first here to enter an unofficial protest to the new Psalter.
I don't like the fact that they've gone away from the older language, at all. When I read and memorize the Bible, I like the idea that previous generations read and learned the same words, and that my children, and their children, will do so as well -- and the same thing goes for Psalter versions. Why do our Psalter versions need to change every generation (at least); and why do we need to abandon what might be described as the traditional language of piety, still found in our doctrinal standards? My wife and I use the Authorized Version of Scripture, and the Psalms of David in Metre, for family worship. Crown and Covenant also carries words-only editions of that auld Scottish version of the Psalms; I highly recommend it.
I don't like the fact that they've gone away from the older language, at all. When I read and memorize the Bible, I like the idea that previous generations read and learned the same words, and that my children, and their children, will do so as well -- and the same thing goes for Psalter versions. Why do our Psalter versions need to change every generation (at least); and why do we need to abandon what might be described as the traditional language of piety, still found in our doctrinal standards? My wife and I use the Authorized Version of Scripture, and the Psalms of David in Metre, for family worship. Crown and Covenant also carries words-only editions of that auld Scottish version of the Psalms; I highly recommend it.
he beholds
Puritan Board Doctor
I think I heard someone say, in defense of this, that Jehovah wasn't in the Bible anyway. Is this true/can you explain?
As for the question of new or old, I don't think you can make a Scriptural case requiring either one, so I think it is fair to do. I know that singable Psalms are a blessing for people like me. I have been in many RP services (also, Chapel every Tuesday at my college was EP) and felt very foolish singing along to what felt like Yoda-speak to me. I know that is anecdotal and pragmatic and still not a Scriptural defense. But I would be very excited to use some of these new settings of the Psalms, especially if the tunes are new, too, in our worship service! I love when we sing Fernando Ortega or RUF-type Psalm arrangements.
Backwoods Presbyterian
Puritanboard Amanuensis
Let me be the first here to enter an unofficial protest to the new Psalter.
I don't like the fact that they've gone away from the older language, at all. When I read and memorize the Bible, I like the idea that previous generations read and learned the same words, and that my children, and their children, will do so as well -- and the same thing goes for Psalter versions. Why do our Psalter versions need to change every generation (at least); and why do we need to abandon what might be described as the traditional language of piety, still found in our doctrinal standards? My wife and I use the Authorized Version of Scripture, and the Psalms of David in Metre, for family worship. Crown and Covenant also carries words-only editions of that auld Scottish version of the Psalms; I highly recommend it.
Very Interesting. In my unofficial and varied straw polling I can tell you that a good number of the "youngin's" agree with you. For whatever reason it seems that the 35-55 age group were the real pushers behind really radically modernizing the text. I remember last year at Synod a pleasant discussion over how Psalm 22A was arranged and how "bland" it sounded in the modern phrasing and verbage. Be interesting to see it, that is for sure.
he beholds
Puritan Board Doctor
So should the OT say Jehovah, LORD, or Adonai?
Prufrock
Arbitrary Moderation
The LORD is the common rendering of the tetragrammaton, based upon the fact that the NT translates YHWH as kurios, or Lord. Adonai is a separate word; it is a title, rather than a name. Jehovah was the common old rendering of the name YHWH, when it was presented in "name form," although I'm not sure when or when that tradition began.
he beholds
Puritan Board Doctor
So is the argument for Jehovah for the sake of tradition? Or is there still some other significance? I know in my head, Jehovah just sounds right when singing Psalms.
I should know this, but what do our Bibles say? ESV? KJV? Geneva Bible?
This is my favorite arrangement of a Psalm: (To hear a snippet, go here!)
I should know this, but what do our Bibles say? ESV? KJV? Geneva Bible?
This is my favorite arrangement of a Psalm: (To hear a snippet, go here!)
Knoxienne
Puritan Board Graduate
Amen - love it. I also like Ps 98A from the RPCNA hymnal.
What's beautiful is not just singing these in church, but fellowshiping with a large family and participating in a psalm sing with the whole family including children singing parts. What a blessing from the Lord.
What's beautiful is not just singing these in church, but fellowshiping with a large family and participating in a psalm sing with the whole family including children singing parts. What a blessing from the Lord.
Prufrock
Arbitrary Moderation
Jessi,
I'm quite certain you won't find the word "Jehovah" in any modern translations, since no one really uses that vowel combination anymore: the most common rendition you will hear (if one attempts to do so) is Yah-W[v]eh. Older translations will use it sometimes in very rare instances. For instance, of the hundreds (thousands?) of times the divine name is used in the Old Testament, King Jimmy renders it Jehovah 4 times, and the Geneva 8. They will normally represent it by "the LORD."
As to what the arguments are for keeping the rendering "Jehovah," I can't speak for that -- I've actually never heard any make that case. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable can fill you in on that one.
I'm quite certain you won't find the word "Jehovah" in any modern translations, since no one really uses that vowel combination anymore: the most common rendition you will hear (if one attempts to do so) is Yah-W[v]eh. Older translations will use it sometimes in very rare instances. For instance, of the hundreds (thousands?) of times the divine name is used in the Old Testament, King Jimmy renders it Jehovah 4 times, and the Geneva 8. They will normally represent it by "the LORD."
As to what the arguments are for keeping the rendering "Jehovah," I can't speak for that -- I've actually never heard any make that case. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable can fill you in on that one.
Tripel
Puritan Board Senior
Is there anything better about the older language other than that it is older? Would it be better if we learned and sang the Pslams in their original language?
If what you are expressing is sheer personal preference, I totally respect that. Like those who just prefer the language of the KJV. But I take objection to any notion that the common language of the day is somehow lesser.
R Harris
Puritan Board Sophomore
I think the main objection to the 1973 RPCNA Psalter (and several Covenanters will give you the same sentiment) was the NIV-like translation of the Psalms and their being put to metrical verse. Hopefully this new version has corrected some of the language/translation.
Pastor Richard Bacon attempted to correct this problem with the Comprehensive Psalter. Not sure how successful in terms of sales or acceptance that psalter has been, but the intent was to try and remain as faithful to the original Hebrew as possible.
Pastor Richard Bacon attempted to correct this problem with the Comprehensive Psalter. Not sure how successful in terms of sales or acceptance that psalter has been, but the intent was to try and remain as faithful to the original Hebrew as possible.
Kaalvenist
Puritan Board Sophomore
I don't think I have to belabor the obvious, that there is a difference from employing older forms and patterns of speech (which have entered into common ecclesiastical usage in many quarters), and employing an entirely different language (Hebrew vs. English).
You raise an interesting question. If a person of today who ordinarily uses modern-day English employs "older forms" of speech in addressing God in prayer; does this not constitute a valid, recognizable feature of modern-day English? I know that many today don't do this; but it should be pointed out that the Revised Version (1881) and American Standard Version (1901) both employed this language throughout; and that the old version of the New American Standard Bible (which I've seen still used in a few different churches) employed this language when addressing God. Obviously, these versions of Scripture were not employing this language because of the preponderance of Elizabethan English in the target culture(s) -- except in what might be called ecclesiastical language, or the language of piety. If this is still the case, there is no reason to maintain that the language of modern-day English be used as an excuse to abandon the Authorized Version of Scripture, or the Scottish Metrical Psalter.
-----Added 5/21/2009 at 10:18:19 EST-----
Randy,
The Comprehensive Psalter, as indicated in its subtitle, is simply a repackaging of the Psalms of David in Metre, i.e. the Scottish Metrical Psalter of 1650. Dr. Bacon didn't do any of the actual translation work himself.
21st Century Calvinist
Puritan Board Junior
In the Hebrew and Greek texts is God addressed using a different form?
Moving on, I can understand a clinging to the familiar. When I was a member of the Free Church of Scotland a contemporary version of the psalter (Sing Psalms) was introduced alongside the Scottish Psalter. I had no objection to the idea of a new translation, I just wasn't familiar with it nor did it sound as majestic as the Scottish Psalter. In time I came to appreciate it, love it even, but its not nearly as memorizable as the Scottish Psalter.
Kaalvenist
Puritan Board Sophomore
Again, it's not an issue of whether God is addressed in a different form in Hebrew (or Greek); it's an issue of whether there is a discernably different form in which He is addressed in our own modern-day English -- and I just illustrated another way in which pronouns for God differ from pronouns for others: we tend to capitalize He, Him, His, etc. when referring to God in modern-day English. The original texts make no such distinction.
Is the use of Thee, Thy, Thou, Thine, etc. a recognizable feature of modern English when addressing God? Are other uses of Elizabethan English (verb forms ending in -eth, -est, etc.) recognizable as ecclesiastical language, or the language of piety, in today's English? If so, the argument against such language, and for newer translations for Scripture and Psalter, are less than convincing.
Besides, such archaic forms also distinguish between singular and plural pronouns, which are found in both Hebrew and Greek, but not in modern-day English -- so in that regard, the use of Thee and Thou vs. Ye and You helps to preserve the understanding of the text better than when such pronouns are abandoned.
Confessor
Puritan Board Senior
I think the fact that we translate the language in our heads is a reason to keep the older language. Assuming that the personal translation you're referring to is rather intuitive or immediate, of course. If people had to translate in their heads, and it took them, say, 5-10 seconds for each phrase, then that would call for a change in the text.
Memorizing Scripture and memorizing Psalms -- and memorizing them verbatim -- are hugely important; therefore I dislike modifications of the wording, especially when we are completely capable of understanding the older terminology with negligible difficulty.
jaybird0827
PuritanBoard Honor Roll
Keeping the older language also facilitates the transfer from generation to generation.
Kaalvenist
Puritan Board Sophomore
Psalm 5:1-7, actually... we've been using a few selections from the new Psalter in worship for the past several months, and just sang that one yesterday.
Don't get me wrong... it's a great tune, and I've always loved Simon and Garfunkel... but I kind of get flashbacks to my parents' old church, that used modified forms of Neil Diamond's "I'm a Believer" and Bobby Darin's "Why Must I Be a Teenager in Love" in the worship service.And what are you talking about, younger generation? 26 years old, married, and expecting... I'm an old man!
PointyHaired Calvinist
Puritan Board Junior
I for one (who prefer modern Bible translations in church and when doing devotions, though I use the Geneva and ASV for personal study) think it's a shame that they're doing a wholesale "modernization" of Thees and Thous in songs. If you want to write new versions, that's fine, but keep the old ones unless the word would confuse (e.g. "How Sweet and Aweful is the Place").
And removing the Lord's name bugs me too - if they changed it to Yahweh that would be one thing, but removing it in place of "LORD" is giving in to the Jewish superstition, In my humble opinion. Lord is fine where it is, but why delete Jehovah/Yahweh?
And removing the Lord's name bugs me too - if they changed it to Yahweh that would be one thing, but removing it in place of "LORD" is giving in to the Jewish superstition, In my humble opinion. Lord is fine where it is, but why delete Jehovah/Yahweh?
I pre-ordered 3 for my family.
I find it interesting that some object to a new Psalter when, in fact, the Scottish Metrical Psalter has existed since 1650 and, if we're really all about generational singing of the Psalms, why bother with the Psalms for Singing to begin with?
I've sung the Metrical Psalter with my family for a couple of years now and I'm going back to the Psalms for Singing (or in this case Psalms for Worship). I'm not persuaded by arguments that "ancient or liturgical language" is preferable to the perspicuity of what is actually being sung. I want my children to be able to call to mind these songs in the same way I do when I'm afflicted with temptation or being assailed. The Psalms are the doctrines of the Scripture put to song and I like the ability to have a vernacular response my neighbor along the way.
I want my children to meditate on the Psalms in the way I do. I think in Modern English. I process ideas that way. My vocabulary is very well developed to the point that my co-workers joke about the words I use so I'm not about avoiding old words but I still find myself hearkening back to The Book of Psalms for Singing rendition of Psalm 3 because the 1650 Metrical Psalter's words are just too foreign to me.
In the end, it is one thing if we were using language in a postmodern way where we might play with words and redefine their meaning to get around what they say. The desire, however, to modernize language is for clarity and, I believe, to aid in the ability to meditate. The heritage we have with the Saints of Old is not English but the Confession of the same doctrines in every tongue imaginable. I'm more concerned that my children's children's children understand the content of the faith much more than they parrot the same words I learned growing up. Were I really concerned about singing the same language of my forebears I would need to learn Finnish and Gaillic.
I find it interesting that some object to a new Psalter when, in fact, the Scottish Metrical Psalter has existed since 1650 and, if we're really all about generational singing of the Psalms, why bother with the Psalms for Singing to begin with?
I've sung the Metrical Psalter with my family for a couple of years now and I'm going back to the Psalms for Singing (or in this case Psalms for Worship). I'm not persuaded by arguments that "ancient or liturgical language" is preferable to the perspicuity of what is actually being sung. I want my children to be able to call to mind these songs in the same way I do when I'm afflicted with temptation or being assailed. The Psalms are the doctrines of the Scripture put to song and I like the ability to have a vernacular response my neighbor along the way.
I want my children to meditate on the Psalms in the way I do. I think in Modern English. I process ideas that way. My vocabulary is very well developed to the point that my co-workers joke about the words I use so I'm not about avoiding old words but I still find myself hearkening back to The Book of Psalms for Singing rendition of Psalm 3 because the 1650 Metrical Psalter's words are just too foreign to me.
In the end, it is one thing if we were using language in a postmodern way where we might play with words and redefine their meaning to get around what they say. The desire, however, to modernize language is for clarity and, I believe, to aid in the ability to meditate. The heritage we have with the Saints of Old is not English but the Confession of the same doctrines in every tongue imaginable. I'm more concerned that my children's children's children understand the content of the faith much more than they parrot the same words I learned growing up. Were I really concerned about singing the same language of my forebears I would need to learn Finnish and Gaillic.
I just received notice that my Psalters shipped.
N. Eshelman
Puritan Board Senior
Our congregation has received there's but we have not begun to use them in worship yet. We are using them in some informal gatherings, etc. to get accustomed to them. For family worship we have switched to the new one though. We really like it. As for Scarborough Fair- the tune goes back at least to the 1600s. Some argue earlier. It is an old English (and Scottish before that) folk song. We are learning that one now, and I believe that the solemnity of the tune captures the words VERY well!
Looking forward to having it in public worship.
Also you can download Psalm 37C here to hear an example:
Free Psalm of the month MP3, Psalms to download
Looking forward to having it in public worship.
Also you can download Psalm 37C here to hear an example:
Free Psalm of the month MP3, Psalms to download
Nathan,
Do you guys site read at home or have a piano to figure the tunes out? I want to start singing them right away with my family but won't know what tunes to use.
Do you guys site read at home or have a piano to figure the tunes out? I want to start singing them right away with my family but won't know what tunes to use.
Confessor
Puritan Board Senior
Can you look up the tunes online? I would imagine that the name of the tune (e.g. "Finlandia") is on each page; at that point it's just a Google search away.
- Status
