24 Jul GS 2013 art 151

Posted at 17:17h in CanRC, GS 2013 by

GS 2013 Article 151 – Book of Praise – Revision of Psalms

Committee 2 presented its second draft. With a few minor changes, this was the result:

1.         Material:

  • 1.1.      Report from the SCBP, Section 1.3 (8.2.4)
  • 1.2.      Letters from the churches at Smithers (8.3.4.3), Grand Valley (8.3.4.4), Attercliffe (8.3.4.8), Barrhead (8.3.4.9), Burlington-Ebenezer (8.3.4.16), Grassie (8.3.4.21), Burlington-Rehoboth (8.3.4.30), Spring Creek (8.3.4.32), Willoughby Heights (8.3.4.39) and Winnipeg-Grace (8.3.4.42)

2.         Observations:

  • 2.1.      The SCBP has received numerous suggestions for change to the text of the Psalms. In Section 1.33 it outlines the process by which these changes were considered. In a table on page 8 of its report it indicates that it rejected changes to 39 of the Psalms. The advice and input of various experts was sought. The churches at Barrhead, Grassie, Smithers and Willoughby Heights complain that their suggested changes to the text were not mentioned in the report and thus question whether their suggestions were even considered.
  • 2.2.      Grand Valley complains that the SCBP employs personal preferences in making changes, citing a number of examples in its complaint. They request Synod to “mandate the SCBP to provide much more interaction with the churches than had occurred, to address the changes and the grounds for those revisions, before Synod adopts these changes and revisions.”
  • 2.3.      The church at Attercliffe points out that a sharp is missing from Ps. 3:1, line 2, second last note.
  • 2.4.      The SCBP proposes to change Ps. 8:4, lines 1 and 2, as follows: “Almost divine! So you, O LORD, have made him, crowned him with glory and as king arrayed him.” The church at Burlington-Rehoboth suggests retaining the APV 2010 wording of Ps. 8:4, line 2, since it is closer to the NIV “and crowned him with glory and honor” (verse 5b). The church at Spring Creek also proposes to retain the word “honour” in line 2.
  • 2.5.      The SCBP proposes a thorough revision of Ps. 17:5, lines 3-8, after a discussion about the meaning and exegesis of the original Hebrew. The church at Burlington-Rehoboth points out that the proposed revision of Ps. 17:5, lines 7 and 8, speaking of the reward of the wicked, does not agree with the NIV text which speaks of the reward of the righteous.
  • 2.6.      In Ps. 18:8, line 5, the word “cunning” is used twice. The SCBP proposes to alter that line to “The shrewd and crafty you outdo in cunning.”
  • 2.7.      The church at Burlington-Ebenezer observes that the SCBP’s proposed change in line 1 of Ps. 19:1 to “The heav’ns above declare” does not solve the problem of singing a two-syllable word “heavens” on a single note and requests to return to the 1984 version.
  • 2.8.      The SCBP responds to many comments about the unfamiliar word “unstinted” in Ps. 20:2, line 3 and suggests replacing the line with “May songs in celebration chanted.” The churches at Burlington-Ebenezer, Burlington-Rehoboth and Spring Creek suggest instead “May songs in celebration shouted” or “May songs of celebration shouted” or “May shouts of celebration chanted.”
  • 2.9.      Several churches wanted to return to the wording “The Lord my Shepherd” in Psalm 23:1, line 1. The SCBP defends the change to “Lord’s.”
  • 2.10.    The first half of Psalm 25:6 is somewhat obscure and not very close to Scripture. The SCBP suggests a major revision of this verse.
  • 2.11.    The SCBP wishes to correct the omission in Ps. 30:1 of the reference to David being healed (verse 2). The churches at Burlington-Rehoboth and Spring Creek observe that “depths” has been changed to “depth” and opine that “depths” is better.
  • 2.12.    The SCBP considered changes to Ps. 36:1, lines 1-2. Having consulted with the experts the SCBP decided no changes were necessary.
  • 2.13.    The SCBP proposes to change the punctuation in Ps. 44:1, lines 4-6.
  • 2.14.    The SCBP accepts the suggestion to eliminate the unfamiliar word “wended” and proposes to reword lines 3-4 of Ps. 57:3.
  • 2.15.    The church at Willoughby Heights suggests that some of the wording of Psalms 68, 98 and 118 lead to an unbiblical understanding that God does battle as though the outcome is yet to be determined.
  • 2.16.    The SCBP agrees with the comment that Ps. 71:2, line 6, should be formulated as a statement rather than a wish.
  • 2.17.    The SCBP proposes a change to Ps. 81:6 to incorporate the element of thunder as found in the Hebrew text and to improve the grammar of the last two lines.
  • 2.18.    The SCBP proposes a change in Ps. 81:11, line 6, to prevent that “Israel” would be sung to two notes in line 2 but to three notes in line 6. Their solution is to eliminate the use of “Israel” from the last line.
  • 2.19.    The SCBP proposes a change in Ps. 89:10, line 2, from “earth’s most exalted king” to “highest of earthly kings” to avoid the plethora of consonants.
  • 2.20.    The churches at Burlington-Rehoboth and Spring Creek propose to reject the SCBP’s proposed change from “heavens” to “heaven” at the end of line 6 in stanza 10 of Ps. 89 and the end of line 5 in stanza 12.
  • 2.21.    The church at Willoughby-Heights proposes to go back to 8 stanzas for Ps. 90 rather than add material which is not in the Biblical text to fill 9 stanzas. The church at Grand Valley concurs.
  • 2.22.    The church at Grassie observes that Ps. 92:1 is composed of one long sentence.
  • 2.23.    The SCBP proposes to change “far mightier than” in Ps. 93:3, line 2, which is awkward to sing, to “more mighty than.”
  • 2.24.    The SCBP proposes to change Ps. 101:3, line 2, from “The faithless and their deeds I hate sincerely” to “All deeds of faithless men I hate sincerely.”
  • 2.25.    The church at Grand Valley requests an explanation of why the words “scandalmonger” and “palace” were added to Ps. 101:5, lines 2-3.
  • 2.26.    The church at Grand Valley is unconvinced of the need to eliminate the word “benefit” from Ps. 103:1, line 3.
  • 2.27.    The church at Grand Valley asks why Ps. 116 was changed when the wording does not take us closer to Scripture.
  • 2.28.    The church at Grand Valley asks why the word “Lord” was taken out of Psalm 118:6.
  • 2.29.    The SCBP proposes to improve the unnatural word order of Ps. 119:34, line 1. It suggests “Forever fixed in heaven is your word” to replace “Fixed in the heavens [elision sign under “en”] is your eternal word.”
  • 2.30.    The SCBP notes that the words “all owing” in Ps. 119:38, line 2, do not sing well. It proposes the wording “for all your precepts I have been observing.”
  • 2.31.    The SCBP proposes to return to the 1984 version of Ps. 120:1, line 2.
  • 2.32.    The SCBP observes that the phrase “so our eyes, too, look to…” in Ps. 123:1, line 7, is open for improvement. It suggests “so do our eyes look to…”
  • 2.33.    The SCBP observes that the wording “the_Amorites” (elided) is awkward to sing in Ps. 136:10, line 1 and propose to change this line to read “Sihon of the Amorites.”
  • 2.34.    The churches at Burlington-Ebenezer and Burlington-Rehoboth observe that in the SCBP’s proposed revision of Ps. 148:4, lines 4-6, Israel becomes the object of praise whereas praise should be identified with the horn of Israel.
  • 2.35.    The church at Winnipeg-Grace makes a suggestion about the musical notation of the last note of each Psalm, noting that the double half note currently used is baffling to them. It suggests to use a whole note instead or a fermata or even a half note.
  • 2.36.    Regarding the text of the Psalms, the SCBP recommends that Synod decide:
    • [1.]       To approve the proposed changes in the text of the APV 2010;
    • [2.]       To declare the revision of the 150 Psalms to have been completed;
    • [3.]       To adopt the text of the Psalms as presented in the APV 2010 along with the incorporated changes under 2.36.1 as the definitive text of the Anglo-Genevan Psalter in the 2013 edition of the Book of Praise.

3.         Considerations:

  • 3.1.      In Section 1.3.4 of their report, the SCBP gives some examples of changes suggested by the churches but rejected by the Committee. It appears that the sheer volume of input from the churches was somewhat overwhelming for the committee. The SCBP is correct when it asserts that, “…it is not possible nor is it our mandate to list all the comments and suggestions received from the churches…”
  • 3.2.      Grand Valley has not presented sufficient evidence that the work of the SCBP should be devoid of “personal preference.” Nor has Grand Valley proven that the SCBP has the mandate to be accountable for every change to individual churches.
  • 3.3.      The change in Ps. 3 musical notation, namely to add a sharp to the second last note of line 2, needs to be reviewed by the musical advisors to the SCBP. The musical notation of the Psalms is intended to match the Dutch Liedboek der Kerken (Acts of Synod Winnipeg 1989, Article 146). It is not clear whether the church at Attercliffe is proposing a change to this notation or whether it has noticed that our notation differs from that of the Dutch churches. It should be noted that many churches in our federation do not adhere strictly to the musical notation of the Psalms and they are free do so as decided by Synod Winnipeg 1989 (Article 146).
  • 3.4.      The approved Bible translations all use the word “honour” in Psalm 8:5. It would be advisable then to retain the word “honour.” In addition, the beginning of line 1: “Almost divine! …” is awkward and the text proposed by the SCBP for line 2 doubles the same “royal” metaphor.
  • 3.5.      The NIV in Psalm 17:14 speaks clearly about the reward of the wicked so there is no conflict between the NIV text and the SCBP proposed new version.
  • 3.6.      The proposal of the SCBP for Ps. 18:8, line 5, has merit.
  • 3.7.      In Ps. 19:1, line 1, singing the two syllable word “heaven” on one note is awkward. The change proposed by the SCBP has the same problem and therefore the 1984 original version “The spacious heavens laud” is certainly less awkward. However, the APV 2010 “The spacious heavens declare” and the proposed revision of the SCBP “The heavens above declare” are improvements over the 1984 version since they use “declare” which is found in both the NIV and ESV. The proposal of the SCBP places “heavens” in a subordinate part of the melody whereas this word should appear at the climax of the line as it is in the APV 2010 version: “The spacious heavens declare.”
  • 3.8.      The word “shouted” at the end of line 3 of Ps. 20 does not rhyme with “granted” (line 1) but it does conform better to the NIV and ESV text (“shout for joy”). The best rendition is “May songs of celebration shouted.”
  • 3.9.      The SCBP’s reasoning is correct in that the APV 2010 version of Ps. 23:1 line 1 is closer to the Biblical text.
  • 3.10.    The newly proposed version of Ps. 25:6 is an improvement over the APV 2010 version.
  • 3.11.    The proposed version of Ps. 30:1, lines 2-4, is an improvement. However, the word “depths” should be retained in line 2.
  • 3.12.    Synod accepts the expert advice on Ps. 36:1, lines 1-2 and does not attempt to make its own judgment.
  • 3.13.    The punctuation change in Ps. 44:1, lines 4-6, are an improvement since lines 4-5 belong together and not lines 5-6.
  • 3.14.    The SCBP’s revision of Ps. 57:1, lines 3-4, is an improvement.
  • 3.15.    The church at Willoughby Heights does not sufficiently reckon with the reality that Ps. 68 is a war psalm in which God is portrayed as doing battle for his people; this does not take away the fact that the overall victory is his.
  • 3.16.    Psalm 71 verse 5 in the ESV and NIV is in the form of a statement so an emendation of lines 5-6 of Ps. 71:2 to reflect that is desirable.
  • 3.17.    It is desirable for the text of Ps. 81:6 to reflect the Hebrew original as closely as possible.
  • 3.18.    The SCBP’s recommendation for Ps 81:11, line 6, is an improvement.
  • 3.19.    The SCBP’s proposal for Ps. 89:10, line 2, is an improvement.
  • 3.20.    The NIV uses “heavens” and ESV “skies” in the Biblical text relating to Ps. 89:10, line 6 and Ps. 89:12, line 5. The churches at Burlington-Rehoboth and Spring Creek observe that “heaven” has a different connotation of the dwelling of God. The lack of rhyming of “heavens” and “given” is not alleviated much by changing “heavens” to “heaven.”
  • 3.21.    Lines 3-5 have been added to Ps. 90:1 and in stanza two 23 words comprising the Biblical text have been rhymed to form stanza 2 using 42 words. There is no apparent justification for making 2 stanzas out of the first stanza of the 1984 version. The 1984 version should be retained without the archaisms.
  • 3.22.    All the stanzas of Ps. 92 except the first are composed of two or three sentences. Sentence length warrants consideration by the SCBP.
  • 3.23.    The SCBP’s suggestion to amend Ps. 93:3, line 2, as noted in Observation 2.23 is a definite improvement.
  • 3.24.    Psalm 101:3 speaks about hating the deeds of the faithless, not that we hate the faithless themselves. The SCBP revision is a definite improvement.
  • 3.25.    Clearly the word “palace” was used in Ps. 101:5, line 2, to rhyme with “malice.” Strong’s Hebrew concordance shows “palace” as an acceptable translation of the Hebrew original. “Scandalmonger” is not an everyday word but perhaps there is no alternative that fits there.
  • 3.26.    The church at Grand Valley makes a good point about Ps 103:1, since the ESV contains both “benefit” and “pit.” The SCBP should take this into consideration.
  • 3.27.    A number of members treasure the poetic language of Psalm 116. However, there were errors in the 1984 version. In stanza 3 of the 1984 version, we ask God to prove himself as Saviour. This element is not in the Biblical text and it is questionable whether God needs to prove himself.
  • 3.28.    It would be preferable to mention the Lord’s name rather than replace it with a pronoun in Ps. 118:6, line 5, because the biblical text has “LORD.”
  • 3.29.    The SCBP’s suggestion to smooth out Ps. 119:34, line 1, is commendable.
  • 3.30.    The SCBP’s suggestion for Ps. 119:38, line 2 (Observation 2.30), uses the ESV “precepts” and flows much better.
  • 3.31.    The SCBP’s suggestion to replace the pronoun “my” with “his” in line of Ps. 120:1 has merit.
  • 3.32.    The SCBP’s suggestion for Ps. 123:1, line 7 (Observation 2.32), is a definite improvement as the repetition of “to (too)” is avoided and “eyes” appears at the climax of the line.
  • 3.33.    Although it would be preferable to stay close to the Biblical text of Ps. 136:10, line 1 and include the word “king,” the present rendition is awkward to sing. Therefore it is acceptable to revise this line.
  • 3.34.    The churches of Burlington-Ebenezer and Burlington-Rehoboth are correct in stating that in the APV 2010, Ps. 148:4, line 5, incorrectly associates “praise and splendour” with “his saints” whereas it should be with “his people’s horn.” The church at Burlington-Rehoboth’s suggestion is preferable. It reads, “He raised his people’s horn on high/Which Israel, his faithful nation/Did praise in joyful celebration.” One difficulty of not only the APV 2010 version and the proposed change of Burlington-Rehoboth but also the 1984 version is that they speak of the horn of Israel being raised up, whereas the Biblical text (ESV) speaks clearly of a horn being raised up for Israel, namely Jesus Christ. Line 6 of the APV 2010 is acceptable but the content is not found in the Biblical text and that is another reason why Burlington-Rehoboth’s suggestion is an improvement.
  • 3.35.    The recommendation of Winnipeg-Grace re: the musical notation of the last note of each Psalm needs to be reviewed by the musical advisors to the SCBP.
  • 3.36.    Regarding the recommendations of the SCBP re: the text of the Psalms:
    • 3.36.1. Synod has interacted with the recommendations of the SCBP, as well as considered feedback from the churches.
    • 3.36.2. Future changes should be made in accordance with the pertinent recommendations adopted by Synod Carman 2013.

4.         Recommendations:

That Synod decide:

  • 4.1.      That the SCBP did fulfill its mandate in considering suggestions from the churches;
  • 4.2.      To send Consideration 3.2 as a response to Grand Valley;
  • 4.3.      To instruct the SCBP to seek advice from their musical advisors whether Ps. 3, line 2, second last note needs to be corrected;
  • 4.4.      To instruct the SCBP to retain the APV 2010 version of Ps. 8:4, line 1, 2;
  • 4.5.      To approve the SCBP’s proposed change to Ps. 17:5;
  • 4.6.      To approve the SCBP’s proposed change to Ps. 18:8, line 5;
  • 4.7.      To retain the APV 2010 version of Ps. 19:1, line 1;
  • 4.8.      To request the SCBP to consider a change in Ps. 20:2, line 3 to “May songs of celebration shouted;”
  • 4.9.      To endorse the SCBP’s decision to retain “Lord’s” in Ps. 23;
  • 4.10.    To approve the SCBP’s proposed change to Ps. 25:6;
  • 4.11.    To approve the SCBP’s proposed revision for Psalm 30:1, lines 1-4, with the exception of “depth” in line 2 which should read “depths;”
  • 4.12.    To retain the APV 2010 version of Ps. 36:1, lines 1-2;
  • 4.13.    To approve the SCBP’s proposed punctuation change in Ps. 44:1, lines 4-6;
  • 4.14.    To approve the SCBP’s revision of Ps. 57:3, lines 3-4;
  • 4.15.    Not to accept the suggestion of Willoughby Heights; instead to retain the APV 2010 version of Pss. 68, 98 and 118;
  • 4.16.    To approve the SCBP’s revision of Ps. 71:2, lines 5-6;
  • 4.17.    To approve the SCBP’s revision of Ps. 81:6;
  • 4.18.    To approve the SCBP’s revision of Ps. 81:11, line 6;
  • 4.19.    To approve the SCBP’s revision of Ps. 89:10, line 2;
  • 4.20.    To judge that the churches of Burlington-Rehoboth and Spring Creek are correct in their recommendations to leave Ps. 89:10, line 6 and Ps. 89:12, line 5 as they were in the APV 2010;
  • 4.21.    To judge that too many words have been added to Ps. 90:1, 2 and to return to the 1984 version without archaisms;
  • 4.22.    To instruct the SCBP to consider Observation 2.22 and Consideration 3.22;
  • 4.23.    To approve the SCBP’s revision of Ps. 93:3 line 2;
  • 4.24.    To approve the SCBP’s revision of Ps. 101:3 line 2;
  • 4.25.    To send Consideration 3.25 as Synod’s answer to Grand Valley;
  • 4.26.    To instruct the SCBP to consider the suggestion regarding Ps. 103:1;
  • 4.27.    To send Consideration 3.27 as Synod’s answer to Grand Valley;
  • 4.28.    To ask the SCBP to revert to the 1984 version of Ps. 118:6 line 5;
  • 4.29.    To approve the SCBP’s revision of Ps. 119:34 line 1;
  • 4.30.    To approve the SCBP’s revision of Ps. 119:38 line 2;
  • 4.31.    To approve the SCBP’s revision of Ps. 120:1 line 2;
  • 4.32.    To approve the SCBP’s revision of Ps. 123:1 line 7;
  • 4.33.    To approve the SCBP’s revision of Ps. 136:10 line 1;
  • 4.34.    To direct the SCBP to implement the suggestion of Burlington-Rehoboth re Ps. 148:4 lines 4-6 (Consideration 3.34);
  • 4.35.    To instruct the SCBP to seek advice regarding the musical notation of the last note of each Psalm;
  • 4.36.    General recommendations re: completion of the work:
    • 4.36.1. Synod Carman 2013 instructs the SCBP to implement the relevant recommendations under 4 regarding the revision of the text of the Psalms;
    • 4.36.2. Synod Carman 2013 adopts the text of the psalms as presented in the APV2010, along with the incorporated changes under 4.36.1 as the definitive text of the Anglo-Genevan Psalter in the 2013 edition of the Book of Praise;
    • 4.36.3. Any further changes should be made in accordance with the Acts of Synod Carman 2013, Article 125, Recommendation 4.5.

ADOPTED

Print page