18th-19th Century Changing Views of Bible Translation and Metrical Psalter

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Afterthought

Puritan Board Senior
From here: "Attitudes towards the Biblical text itself had also changed, with closer emphasis being paid on its exact phrasing. This new regard for the letter of the Biblical text diminished the appeal of the psalters' previous versions; those who sang them no longer felt they were singing Scripture."

I mean, this is Wikipedia, but is this true? What exactly would have changed, since I had thought "formal equivalence" took into account "exact phrasing"? Any things for reading further on this subject?
 
If that was true then those who love the NIV for its dynamic equivalence should love the Psalter and just want to update its language.
 
I'm not sure about that. The historical conditions that produced a love for the Psalter (such as a desire to sing Scripture faithfully and a recognition of continuity between Old and New Testaments) haven't been present with the release of the NIV. But even so, there are occasional psalm snippets or phrases and NIVesque (or maybe Messagesque?) psalms or psalm portions that appear in CCM. I guess there is also "Sons of Korah," but I don't know what its translation philosophy has been or whether its goal has been the same as those of Psalters.
 
As the quote is given in the context of Anglicanism in the 1700s, it may be true. If by "the psalter's previous versions" it is referring primarily to Watts, then they had warrant for "no longer [feeling] they were singing Scripture."

I don't know whether the 1650 Psalter was used among Anglicans at the time; it is scrupulously close to the original, but probably a bit plain for 18th century CofE parishioners.
 
Afterthought said:
What exactly would have changed, since I had thought "formal equivalence" took into account "exact phrasing"?
Click to expand...

The term "formal equivalence," though useful, becomes somewhat of an anachronism when referring to the Authorized Version. when it comes to today's FE translations, there is more of an emphasis on exact phrasing than there was at the time. The KJV translators, though very strict in their translating, sometimes avoided a verbal exactitude in favor of a conceptual exactitude.
 
TylerRay said:
The term "formal equivalence," though useful, becomes somewhat of an anachronism when referring to the Authorized Version. when it comes to today's FE translations, there is more of an emphasis on exact phrasing than there was at the time. The KJV translators, though very strict in their translating, sometimes avoided a verbal exactitude in favor of a conceptual exactitude.
Click to expand...
I should have guessed as much (that the term was anachronistic). I had just thought that the strictness of the AV showed a concern not only for verbal exactitude but formal too (e.g., the ordering of words in a sentence; pronouns with gender) such that there would be little difference between then and modern translations. But then, I have noticed such things as "God forbid" now being translated as "May it never be." If you or anyone else has some reading or further comments on this matter concerning differences and changes in translation philosophy (including examples of changes), I'd be interested in taking a look at them. However, I don't want this thread to get sidetracked with debates about the merits of particular translations except insofar as they have a bearing on differences and changes in translation philosophy. See here.
 
Last edited:
I'd noticed the "God forbid" being apparently an English colloquialism. The Hebrew phrase does not refer to God and "May it never be" is quite literal. Similarly with the term "sodomy" and "sodomite" apparently, as the Hebrew or Greek term does not refer to the town. As I have thought about the "God forbid" phrase I am not sure I like the invocation of God's name.
 
Logan said:
I'd noticed the "God forbid" being apparently an English colloquialism. The Hebrew phrase does not refer to God and "May it never be" is quite literal. Similarly with the term "sodomy" and "sodomite" apparently, as the Hebrew or Greek term does not refer to the town. As I have thought about the "God forbid" phrase I am not sure I like the invocation of God's name.
Click to expand...
Just so my thread doesn't get unintentionally sidetracked, I'd appreciate it if the merits of these sorts of things were not discussed except insofar as they have a bearing on understanding the shift and/or differences in translation philosophy. That is, I'm not looking to turn this thread into a debate over which translation is better in this case. Not to mention that "God forbid" has already been discussed in past threads a few times.

TylerRay said:
In this exegetical lecture on Philippians 2, John Murray defends the Authorized Version's non-literal rendering of verse 7.
Click to expand...
I'll take a look into it. :up:
 
Afterthought said:
But then, I have noticed such things as "God forbid" now being translated as "May it never be." If you or anyone else has some reading or further comments on this matter, I'd be interested in taking a look at them.
Click to expand...
I was replying to the above quotation but apparently mistook your meaning. My apologies, I'll go back to just reading then. I have found what you've discussed so far to be interesting and informative and was not trying to discuss the merits of various translations.
 
Logan said:
I was replying to the above quotation but apparently mistook your meaning. My apologies, I'll go back to just reading then. I have found what you've discussed so far to be interesting and informative and was not trying to discuss the merits of various translations.
Click to expand...
You're right, that is a bit ambiguous. My apologies; I'll fix that up. I didn't think you were attempting to discuss the merits of various translations, but when someone says something like, "As I have thought about the "God forbid" phrase I am not sure I like the invocation of God's name." (not that such is entirely off topic, since it shows something of translation philosophy in it) the probability of thread derailment in that direction greatly increases, so I thought it important to clarify the intent of this thread.
 
They should have called it wackypedia. It is very hard to take seriously. Besides being a mishmash of information which seems to have no coherent purpose, anonymity means it is impossible to gauge authorial bias.

The history of the 1650 Scottish Psalter demonstrates that its design was to keep as closely to the Hebrew text as a metrical version would allow. While there are obvious cases of "metaphrase" by means of extension, duplication, simplification, etc., in order to fit the metre, there is no doubt that the overall product has achieved a reliable accuracy which is lacking in many metrications.

It should be obvious that changing attitudes towards the Psalter were mostly owing to an altered sense of taste, especially as it comes to bear on public worship.
 
armourbearer said:
They should have called it wackypedia. It is very hard to take seriously. Besides being a mishmash of information which seems to have no coherent purpose, anonymity means it is impossible to gauge authorial bias.
Click to expand...
:) Quite true.


Thanks for the input! By sense of taste, you mean that people simply stopped liking singing from the Psalter (perhaps the youth at first, who were "kept" by bringing in other songs), rather than having some reflective reason for dropping it (like a changing theological view or changing principle of worship or change in views of what constitutes a good metrication)?
 
I wonder is what the wiki folks were trying to say here refers to the tendency for psalters to try to adopt a meter for the translated language, in some cases changing the word order, and so forth.
 
Afterthought said:
Thanks for the input! By sense of taste, you mean that people simply stopped liking singing from the Psalter (perhaps the youth at first, who were "kept" by bringing in other songs), rather than having some reflective reason for dropping it (like a changing theological view or changing principle of worship or change in views of what constitutes a good metrication)?
Click to expand...

It is true that where there is no appreciation for the real-world concepts of the Psalter there is a perceived need to "Christianise" it. However, I was thinking more in terms of "culture" itself, which stereotypes the taste of the people so that they come to expect certain qualities in the medium by which they are instructed or by which they worship. I suppose a good analogy is the way that "commercials" not only sell products but seek to instill a sense of need for the product, thus shaping the way people think about their breakfast cereal, cars, etc. In fact, they have the power to reshape worldview by getting the individual to think of himself as a consumer and his own tastes as being of pre-eminent value. In the same way, as society thinks of itself as more refined, better developed, etc., the utility of an accurate Psalter loses value and something more suited to the tastes of the individual becomes the foremost consideration.
 
jwithnell said:
I wonder is what the wiki folks were trying to say here refers to the tendency for psalters to try to adopt a meter for the translated language, in some cases changing the word order, and so forth.
Click to expand...
That could be a possibility. I suppose a stricter care for word order is almost indefinitely possible when care remains to make the translation intelligible.

armourbearer said:
I was thinking more in terms of "culture" itself, which stereotypes the taste of the people so that they come to expect certain qualities in the medium by which they are instructed or by which they worship.
Click to expand...
Ah, I see. Very interesting analysis! I hadn't considered that sort of thing before. Thank you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top