Psalms - The difficulty of Poetry

It seems to me that the underlying difficulty in studying the Psalms is that they are, primarily, poetry. And poetry, more than more concrete literary forms, is highly dependent on the culture and context it is written in. Translators of the Psalms are met with the difficulty of taking on the viewpoint of the Hebrew people of that time (so as to understand the Psalms correctly), and then, in translating, to give us the same poetic effect. In some cases, I would go so far as to say that a technically correct translation and a translation that conveys the same poetic or emotional content might be mutually exclusive. This can be remedied by educating the reader (as through footnotes), to assist him in understanding those aspects of the text that could not be translated well.
On that basis, I think one must proceed cautiously when comparing translations of the Psalms. We must ask who, when, why, and with what intent about the translators as much as we do about the original authors.
Robert Alter's translation is mainly concerned with literal, historical accuracy, and secondly attempt to maintain a poetic sense (the success of the latter is debatable). The Bay Psalm Book, to which I will be comparing it, was the first book printed (and written) in British America. It was translated by a group of Puritan ministers. While it is in parts remarkably accurate considering the circumstances under which it was written, it was written in meter, thus possibly damaging the accuracy.

In Psalm 2 we see two significant variances.

The first lies in the word which Alter (and most common translations) translate as "nations", in the context of the statement: "Why are the nations aroused, and the people murmur vain things?" Psalm 2:1.
The Bay Psalm Book translates as follows: . The choice of the word heathen is curious - it seems to bear little relation to "nations". We might write it off as an intentional reinterpretation by the Puritans. No doubt it was, but it may not be so far from the original meaning as we would assume. The Hebrew people were simultaneously a religious, a cultural, and a political entity, and attacking one aspect of this was an attack on the other parts. Even in Alter's translation, though this first verse might be understood politically, the second states that worldly rulers conspire "against the Lord." Since the Puritans were reading the Psalms from a Christian context, an attack against Israel would make little sense, but an attack against Christianity or against their God would - thus, translating "nations" as "heathen" simply refers to enemies of their God. It is technically inaccurate, though for the people at the time, it may have provided them with the most understandable paraphrase.

The second difference is at the end of the Psalm. What Alter translates as "With purity be armed", the Bay Psalm Book writes as"Kiss yee the Sonne".
This is a significant difference. In Alter's footnotes, he mentions that the verb for "be armed" could also mean "kiss", and that the phrase makes little sense. He also explains that he has "revocaliz[ed] bar (son? wheat?) as bor, purity." (Alter, p.7) Thus, it seems that the Bay Psalm book is completely justifiable based on the original text. It surprises me that Alter did not indicate the possibility of this translation, and causes me to wonder about his translating practice. He explains in the introduction that he has tried to remove Christian imagery from the Psalms. Perhaps he has been over-enthusiastic in this respect - for the translation from the Bay Psalm book makes perfect sense in the context of the Psalm. Alter translated verse 6 and 7 in a way that makes clear that (in whatever sense), the King is referred to as God's Son. In his footnotes, he clarifies that this is not to be understood in a Christological sense. I understand that, but it makes it even more confusing that he avoided the translation of "Kiss the Son".

At random, I read another Psalm (Psalm 4), in both translations, and found them remarkably similar. Most differences in the Bay Psalm Book could be accounted for by the need to remain in meter. Two things I will point out: First, what Alter translates (presumably more correctly) as "vain things", the Bay Psalm book writes as "vanity", a rather significant change in tone, that I think we could ascribe to a Puritan interpretation. On the other hand, there was no attempt made to hide the following passage which speaks of gladness coming from corn and new wine. This casual treatment of drinking seems to indicate - in contrast to the choice of the word "vanity" - that the translators were committed to an accurate translation, even when it differed from how they generally understood things.


Comparing these two translations has been inconclusive, thus far. While the Bay Psalm Book is known not to be perfectly accurate, I am surprised to find that in the place that it differed most significantly from Alter's translation, it was in fact more accurate - it seems that the surrounding culture influenced both the Puritans and Alter. In a broader perspective, I found that the translations remain remarkably similar.