Psalter from Monks of New Skete?

August 3, 2008

I don\'t know how I missed it for so long, but there is a modern-English translation of the Psalter by the Monks of New Skete. It\'s here:

http://my.orthodoxcircle.com/_forum/index.php?board=1&cat=32&sub=5018

I am no scholar in Biblical languages so I can\'t say if it\'s a faithful translation. I do have a good feel for English style, and this is one of the best translations in that respect that I\'ve found. Other things being equal, I prefer a plain English modern translation. But since I\'ve never found a really good one (in my opinion), I\'ve been using the one produced by the monks of Holy Transfiguration Monastery in their deliberately archaic idiom.

The version from New Skete was published in 1984 and it\'s out of print. Does anybody have a copy they\'d like to sell me?

They include their philosophy of translation on the site. I will append it below. I would be interested in hearing responses to their comments about the LXX and its relative trustworthiness. Do you believe this is a good translation or not? I note that they\'ve made one or two minor readjustments to numbering, although overall it seems to follow the LXX numbering closely. Here\'s what they say:

This psalter is the translation made and used at New Skete since 1966. With the constant repetition and extensive use of psalms in Orthodox Catholic worship, especially in a monastery, the psalms must always be at hand. However, the absence of a psalter divided in Orthodox fashion and using contemporary American English strongly suggested a new translation. This edition, then, is an attempt to fill that need. It strives for clarity and euphony in a faithful and poetic rendition of the psalms and canticles. It has also been carefully revised throughout the last eighteen years during its use in the daily offices at New Skete.

We have used English words in their normal contemporary sense here, because we feel obliged to encourage the use and understanding of the psalms today, and we are convinced that only such language can fulfill this crucial task. Though it must be said that we have translated rather than paraphrased the psalter, certainly, by definition, all translation must ultimately be called paraphrase. No translation, much less a literal one, perfectly transmits the fullness of the original with its unique nuances and associations, nor the richness of the language stemming from centuries of use.

So with the psalms. We can retain the simplicity, directness, and uniquely Israelite mannerisms that have given the psalms their classic stature in literature and worship. But trying to render them absolutely, word for word, inevitably results in a stilted, quaint, and abstruse text. Striving for completely literal fidelity necessarily violates the inspiration and dynamic meaning of the original. Such an awkward, heavy reproduction of a naturally graceful and lucid original cannot honestly be called faithful, for in the end, it is actually a failure to translate.

We have tried to preserve the subtle shades of meaning and the poetic idiom of the psalms as much as possible in normal English. Yet we have taken care to render their colorful imagery and metaphors in a way that does not invite ridicule because of the realities of our own culture and times, or because they are offensive or inappropriate in church.

The compelling spirit and the delicate images and metaphors unique to the psalms are lost beyond hope when translated into archaic English. In fact, for us today, Elizabethan and King James English are virtually other languages; the rendering of the psalms into these earlier idioms frustrates the purpose of translation from the outset.

They certainly cannot be considered a purer form of English. If anything, modern language might be purer, if only for its tendency to greater simplicity. The shorter words and sentences of modern literary English--at the same time more compact with meaning--might well be, by far, a better match to the force of the Hebrew grammatical forms and constructions.

To continue to create an abyss between prayer and the language natural to us in this era is not only artificial, misleading, and arbitrary, but bound from the outset to foster fragmentation and alienation. Older and obscure English forms and styles lack clarity even for experts. They lead to confusion and error, and not to enlightenment. Yet they are often advocated under the guise of solemnity, beauty, liturgical propriety, or even divine will.

Americans today think and speak differently than they did even a century ago. Now, the barrage of words typical of much older thought patterns only obscures the meaning, and countless syllables trip up tongue and ear alike. Attention shifts away from the spiritual meaning of the songs. The worshipper then becomes unable to focus on what is taking place during the service or instead just ignores the words. In short, he is frustrated from the time he enters the temple, and the liturgy is deprived of its power.

While rapid changes in society are reflected in language, we should not erroneously presume that the way to a proper, dignified, and stable liturgical language lies in promoting archaisms. To develop and propagate any kind of \\"liturgicalese\\" is to manifest an astounding blindness and lack of vision. A language is obviously liturgical when it conveys the biblical and patristic idioms, but these idioms must be clear and understandable to the average, educated person today. This necessarily means that a truly liturgical language has the smooth rhythm, the flowing diction, and the comprehensible grammar and simplicity of expression of any good poetry, any good writing. Otherwise, leave it in the original! Today\'s language frees the reader and the listener of sentimentality by allowing the overwhelming power and immediacy of the psalms to shine through. Their wisdom goes straight to the heart.

The point of this translation, then, is to make a correct hearing possible by shedding greater light on the meaning of the psalms and canticles and the world view they imply. Through the rhythms, accents, and musical stresses of contemporary English, both the chanters of the psalms and the listeners are brought to a real and deep understanding of the Word. Such correct hearing leads to growth in devotion, wisdom, and the spirit of Christ. Conscious of our own limitations for this sober task and the manifold problems posed by the text of the psalms, we cannot expect that this text will be considered perfect. But we hope that our efforts will bear the fruit of confidence and encouragement as well as provide an uplifted spirit for all who read and hear these songs.

The present edition has been translated from the original languages with a critical use of the ancient sources. We have taken note of the translations in which the Septuagint has traditionally been employed throughout the Orthodox world. Finally, we have carefully compared our translation with a host of the innumerable ones available in various modern languages.

No ancient version of the biblical texts can be considered definitive by itself, whether it be the Septuagint or the Vulgate, the Peshitta (Syriac) or the Masorah. This is confirmed by modern studies on the important discoveries in the Near East within the last half century and by comparative studies in northwest Semitic languages. These studies have given us a better knowledge of biblical peoples and cultures. They have also indicated a greater justification of the masoretic Hebrew than is usually admitted among Orthodox Christians. At the same time these results have clarified many an anomaly in the ancient versions.

It is understood by scholars today that, unfortunately, the compilers of the Septuagint frequently manifest a deficient, perhaps even a defective, understanding of and facility with the form of Hebrew that was ancient and \\"dead\\" even in their time. Therefore, the Septuagint, venerable as it is, reflects less precision, less comprehension of the Word of God than is generally possible through scholarship today.

Because this edition of the psalter is intended for liturgical use and/or private prayer, all notes and explanations follow in a subsequent volume. For now, the reader is referred to the many excellent commentaries available, for study and for deeper understanding of the many layers of meaning within the psalms.

We have capitalized only proper names and included both the Hebrew and Greek numbering of the individual psalms [e.g., Psalm 51(50)]. Where liturgical use demands it, we have followed the Septuagint reading, such as for messianic references. We have arranged the text of this edition in paragraphs with divisions according to the thought structure, for easier reading and comprehension.

Be the first person to like this.