The Three Books of God

Frank Livingstone Huntley, Bishop Joseph Hall and Protestant Meditation in Seventeenth-Century England, pp. 9-10:

Variety of Subject Matter in the "Three Books of God." Finally, Protestant meditation as opposed to Ignatian has a far greater variety in subject matter and procedure since it is more widely based on the "three books of God." In meditation the Protestant is not confined to the passion of Christ and the four eschatological "facts." He is free to roam through all the majesty of God's creation, through the Old and New Testaments of the Bible, and into his innermost soul's perception of God Himself. Two of the "books" have been made familiar through such confessions as this one of Dr. Thomas Browne: "Thus there are two books from whence I collect my divinity: besides that written one of God, another of his servant nature."7 As soon as the "I" is mentioned or even thought, a third "volume" is added for the Protestant, that of the ego, the conscience, the soul -- through which, even were the creatures and the Bible unavailable, one can still know God. In 1623 Owen Feltham recognized the "three books" in his Resolves: "God hath left three bookes to the World, in each of which hee may easily be found: The Booke of the Creatures, the Booke of Conscience, and his written Word."8 Thus Professor Martz summarizes "the Augustinian Quest" for Henry Vaughan by saying: "Such is the paradise within, compounded of the Bible, of Nature, and of the Self, which lies at the heart of Vaughan's Silex Scintillans, 1650...."9 For Protestant meditation in seventeenth century England, perhaps it took Joshua Sylvester's translation of the French Huguenot poet's Les Semaines to popularize the book of the creatures, King James' committees of Anglican bishops and Puritan divines for a new translation of the Bible to lend impetus to the book of Scriptures, and St. Paul, St. Augustine, and Calvin to stimulate the individual's soul-hunger for God.

Of the "three books," that of the Scriptures is central; and for meditation, if one book of the Bible were central to this, it would be the Psalms, a supposition strengthened by the incredibly fruitful custom, from Sydney to Milton, of putting psalms into English verse for singing. In the King James version of the Bible, the term "meditation" occurs more often in the Psalms than in all the other books of the Bible put together, and in the biblical mind of the Protestant the act of meditation is linked more closely to poetry and fervent ejaculatory address than to mental discipline. The Psalmist's most famous religious address (Ps. 19:14) does not mention paradigm or even intellect: "Let the words of my mouth and the meditations of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O Lord, my strength and my redeemer." Joseph Hall had sung the Psalms from his boyhood, and while writing on meditation tried his hand at "metaphrasing" a few of them. "Indeed, my Poetrie was long sithence out of date," he writes in the 1607 publication of the result, "and yielded hir place to grauer studies; but whose vaine would it not revive to looke into these heauenly songs? I were not woorthy to be a Diuine, if it should repent me to be a Poet with DAVID, after I shall haue aged in the Pulpit."10 David's psalms contain all "three books of God": some praise the Lord for his "creatures" (Pss. 33, 104, 148); others cogitate His written commands (Ps. 119, no. 5); and still others seek God by looking into the poet's soul (Pss. 6, 22, 38, 42). One of the psalms that combines all three "books" is Psalm 19, which ends with the phrase "the meditations of my heart." The Psalm is divided into three parts: the first six verses meditate on "the Book of the Creatures"; the next four verses, on "the Book of Scriptures"; and the last four verses open up "the Book of the Soul," that is the individual's conscience. The Psalms of David, as well as the whole Bible from Genesis to the Revelation, provide literally for the Protestant "God's plenty" in varied subjects on which to meditate.

7. Religio Medici, pt. 1, sect. 25.
8. Owen Feltham, Resolves: A Duple Century, 4th ed. (London, 1631), 2nd cent. no. 68.
9. Louis L. Martz, The Paradise Within, p. 30.

400th Anniversary of the King James Bible

Today marks the 400th anniversary of what is arguably the greatest Bible translation ever prepared. Standing on the shoulders of John Wycliffe, William Tyndale, Myles Coverdale, John Rogers, William Whittingham, among many other martyrs and scholars; launched at the 1604 Hampton Court Conference by the proposal of that "living library," Puritan John Rainolds, and commissioned by a king with his own anti-Puritan agenda; prepared by a great company of translators, including Rainolds himself, using these translation rules; and ultimately embraced by the vast majority of not only Puritans, who had previously enjoyed their beloved Geneva Bibles, but also the entire Western world for centuries, believers and unbelievers alike in their own way; the King James Bible represents the high-water mark of English Bible translation.

It was on May 2, 1611, that the King's Printer, Robert Barker, published what became known both as the 'Authorised' and 'King James Version' of the Bible. David Norton notes that it was 'appointed' by King James to be read in all the churches, rather than 'authorised.'

David Norton, A Textual History of the King James Bible, p. 46:

The finely engraved title page, by Cornelius Boel, reads:

The Holy Bible, Conteyning the Old Testament, AND THE NEW: Newly Translated out of the Originall tongues: & with the former Translations diligently compared and reuised: by his Majesties speciall Comandement. Appointed to be read in Churches. Imprinted at London by Robert Barker. Printer to the Kings most excellent Maiestie. ANNO DOM. 1611.

The use of 'appointed' and the absence of 'authorised' are striking -- the more striking in that the Bishops' Bible after 1565 had been 'authorised and appointed to be read in Churches' (H188). Moreover, there is no official record of authorisation (for these reasons I prefer to call this Bible the King James Bible).

Whether 'appointed' or 'authorised,' we can give thanks to God for the labors of those men who bequeathed to the world a legacy that lives on today, four centuries later. Thankful as I am for the Tyndale and Geneva Bibles, as well the labors of other faithful Bible scholarship, before and after 1611, it is true what T.S. Eliot said (Sunday Telegraph, No. 98 (16th December 1962), p. 7),

The age covered by the reigns of Elizabeth I and James I was richer in writers of genius than is our own, and we should not expect a translation made in our time to be a masterpiece of our literature or, as was the Authorized Version of 1611, an exemplar of English prose for successive generations of writers.

While I am not personally opposed to the ecclesiastical production of new, faithful English Bible translation one day that is based, as was the KJV, on the Majority Text, I have yet to see one among a 20th century landscape strewn with vastly inferior attempts at translation. C.S. Lewis has further rightly noted in a letter to T.S. Eliot that it is "Odd, the way the less the Bible is read the more it is translated (Letters, May 25, 1962).

For those who desire to study the textual and translation issues that underlie the modern attempts to supplant the KJV as the English ecclesiastical text, I recommend the literature of Dean Burgon, Edwards Hills, Theodore Letis, and the Trinitarian Bible Society. Joel Beeke has given his practical reasons for retaining the KJV here. For those seeking assistance in taking up the reading of the KJV, I recommend this aid prepared by Peter Lindstrom. For those seeking to better understand the legacy of the KJV, I recommend Leland Ryken, The Legacy of the King James Bible: Celebrating 400 Years of the Most Influential English Translation.

The King James Version of the Bible is a monument not to the infallibility of man -- it is a fallible translation, yet the best I know of in my native tongue -- but to scholarship and eloquence grounded in fidelity to the Word of God. Thanks be to God for such a faithful labor of love.

It is this thought from the translators to their readers that I would leave with you, friend, in praise of God's Word, which is a spirit that we should all cultivate in love to God and his voice to us:

¶ The praise of the Holy Scriptures

But now what piety without truth? What truth, what saving truth, without the word of God? What word of God, whereof we may be sure, without the Scripture? The Scriptures we are commanded to search. John v. 39. Isaiah viii. 20. They are commended that searched and studied them. Acts xvii. 11 and viii. 28, 29. They are reproved that were unskilful in them, or slow to believe them. Matth. xxii. 29. Luke xxiv. 25. They can make us wise unto salvation. 2 Tim. iii. 15. If we be ignorant, they will instruct us; if out of the way, they will bring us home; if out of order, they will reform us; if in heaviness, comfort us; if dull, quicken us; if cold, inflame us. Tolle, lege; tolle, lege; Take up and read, take up and read the Scriptures, (for unto them was the direction) it was said unto St Augustine by a supernatural voice. Whatsoever is in the Scriptures, believe me, saith the same St Augustine, is high and divine; there is verily truth, and a doctrine most fit for the refreshing and renewing of men’s minds, and truly so tempered, that every one may draw from thence that which is sufficient for him, if he come to draw with a devout and pious mind, as true religion requireth. Thus St Augustine. And St Hierome, Ama Scripturas, et amabit te sapientia, &c. Love the Scriptures, and wisdom will love thee. And St Cyrill against Julian, Even boys that are bred up in the Scriptures, become most religious, &c. But what mention we three or four uses of the Scripture, whereas whatsoever is to be believed, or practised, or hoped for, is contained in them? or three or four sentences of the Fathers, since whosoever is worthy the name of a Father, from Christ’s time downward, hath likewise written not only of the riches, but also of the perfection of the Scripture? I adore the fulness of the Scripture, saith Tertullian against Hermogenes. And again, to Apelles an heretick of the like stamp he saith, I do not admit that which thou bringest in (or concludest) of thine own (head or store, de tuo) without Scripture. So St Justin Martyr before him; We must know by all means (saith he) that it is not lawful (or possible) to learn (any thing) of God or of right piety, save only out of the Prophets, who teach us by divine inspiration. So St Basil after Tertullian, It is a manifest falling away from the faith, and a fault of presumption, either to reject any of those things that are written, or to bring in (upon the head of them, ἐπεισάγειν) any of those things that are not written. We omit to cite to the same effect St Cyrill, Bishop of Jerusalem in his 4. Cateches. St Hierome against Helvidius, St Augustine in his third book against the letters of Petilian, and in very many other places of his works. Also we forbear to descend to latter Fathers, because we will not weary the reader. The Scriptures then being acknowledged to be so full and so perfect, how can we excuse ourselves of negligence, if we do not study them? of curiosity, if we be not content with them? Men talk much of εἰρεσιώνη, how many sweet and goodly things it had hanging on it; of the Philosopher’s stone, that it turneth copper into gold; of Cornucopia, that it had all things necessary for food in it; of Panaces the herb, that it was good for all diseases; of Catholicon the drug, that it is instead of all purges; of Vulcan’s armour, that it was an armour of proof against all thrusts and all blows, &c. Well, that which they falsely or vainly attributed to these for bodily good, we may justly and with full measure ascribe unto the Scripture for spiritual. It is not only an armour, but also a whole armoury of weapons, both offensive and defensive; whereby we may save ourselves, and put the enemy to flight. It is not an herb, but a tree, or rather a whole paradise of trees of life, which bring forth fruit every month, and the fruit thereof is for meat, and the leaves for medicine. It is not a pot of Manna or a cruse of oil, which were for memory only, or for a meal’s meat or two; but as it were a shower of heavenly bread sufficient for a whole host, be it never so great, and as it were a whole cellar full of oil vessels; whereby all our necessities may be provided for, and our debts discharged. In a word, it is a panary of wholesome food against fenowed traditions; a physician’s shop (St Basil calleth it) of preservatives against poisoned heresies; a pandect of profitable laws against rebellious spirits; a treasury of most costly jewels against beggarly rudiments; finally, a fountain of most pure water springing up unto everlasting life. And what marvel? the original thereof being from heaven, not from earth; the author being God, not man; the inditer, the Holy Spirit, not the wit of the Apostles or Prophets; the penmen, such as were sanctified from the womb, and endued with a principal portion of God’s Spirit; the matter, verity, piety, purity, uprightness; the form, God’s word, God’s testimony, God’s oracles, the word of truth, the word of Salvation, &c.; the effects, light of understanding, stableness of persuasion, repentance from dead works, newness of life, holiness, peace, joy in the Holy Ghost; lastly, the end and reward of the study thereof, fellowship with the saints, participation of the heavenly nature, fruition of an inheritance immortal, undefiled, and that never shall fade away: Happy is the man that delighteth in the Scripture, and thrice happy that meditateth in it day and night.

Reading the KJV

In this 400th anniversary year of the 1611 Authorized, or King James, Bible, it remains the preeminent English-language version for the Christian student of God's Word because of its fidelity to the original text and eloquence in translation. Yet, it is recognized that certain words, because they are older, uncommon or archaic, must be wrestled with by many readers. As a help to those readers, brother Peter Lindstrom has prepared a brief guide to the linguistic issues involved entitled "Reading the KJV," and has graciously allowed me to post it here. I commend it to readers who may wish to take up the King James Bible, but have been cautious about doing so because of perceived archaic language. This short paper will help to clarify and clear away confusion about the Elizabethan language that is employed therein. It is worth the effort to delve into this translation of God's Word. What was rightly said about the King James Bible by William Plumer in the 19th century is equally true in the 21st century.

William S. Plumer, Commentary on Romans, p. 20:

Some of the older English versions from quaintness, if not from elegance, do often give the sense in a striking way. But none have, as a whole, been comparable to the authorized English version. Its amazing mastery of our mother tongue, its pure Anglo-Saxon diction and its very careful rendering of the true idea of the author still place it far above all competition.

Book Review: The Book of Psalms for Worship

The Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America (RPCNA) has published a new Psalter, The Book of Psalms for Worship (Pittsburgh, PA: Crown & Covenant Publications, 2009). Crown & Covenant was kind enough to seek my opinion of the new Psalter, and this review is a result of their inquiry, and encouragement to speak my mind fully and freely on the matter. In the interests of full disclosure, I was both a member and an officer (deacon) in the RPCNA for a number of years, and use both the 1973 RPCNA Psalter (The Book of Psalms for Singing) and the 1650 Scottish Metrical Psalter in our family worship.

The 2009 RPCNA Psalter has many practical reasons to commend its usage. It comes in both regular book-size format, as well as large-print (spiral-bound) and pocket (mini) sizes (this is true also of the 1650 Scottish Metrical Psalter published by the Trinitarian Bible Society), and in different colors. Selections from the new Psalter have been recorded and are available on CD and in MP3 format for download to aid in the singing of new Psalm settings. The Psalter itself is well-organized, containing indices of composers, tunes alphabetically and metrically arranged, topics and first lines from the Psalms, and an additional index referencing the usage of particular Psalms in the New Testament, all of which are handy resources. In addition, tables have been prepared identifying familiar hymn tunes used in the new Psalter as well as specifically comparing the differences between the 1973 and 2009 Psalters. "Understanding the Psalms in Christian Worship" and the historical perspective presented in "The Experience of Singing the Psalms" are commendable in the prefaces which precede the Psalms.

It is the substance of the work itself that gives this writer pause. The aim of the Psalter Revision Committee was to revise the 1973 Psalter by rendering it thoroughly in "modern English." This aim, to my mind, is questionable. While I am keenly aware of the challenges presented by singing some Psalm selections in an older Psalter -- the examples of "kyth'st" (Psalm 18.26) and "sith" (Psalms 16.8, 22.8, 50.17, 73.10, 86.3, 109.21, and 119.45) are often put forward in support of this argument for the need to modernize the language -- it must be remembered that just as "older is not always better," neither is newer always better. There is a great benefit to the church when the current generation is able to sing as their forefathers did, and changes ought not be made lightly to a book sung by the whole Church, which is indeed the very Word of God, and not a collection of uninspired hymns. Yet, though this version purposefully aims to eliminate "thee and thou" language entirely from its repertoire, going beyond the efforts of the 1973 edition this regard, in three cases (23B, 24B and 100A) the older "traditional" language is retained in the 2009 Psalter, and not thoroughly expunged. If it is virtuous to scrub from the Psalter all traditional ecclesiastical language, why retain some traditional selections at all? And if some traditional selections can be retained with profit to the church, why not more? What necessity compels this type of revision? Has our language really changed so much since 1973? Does referring to God as "Yahweh" truly reflect modern English speech better than "Jehovah" (Psalm 83.18)? If the effort to modernize the text of the Psalter is really as arbitrary as it appears, what does this say about the push to remove ecclesiastical language that has stood the test of time? The King James Version ("KJV") is still, according to the American Bible Society, "the most widely owned and used English translation in the USA." Traditional ecclesiastical language is, by the testimony of those both inside and outside the church, recognizable, understandable, usable, and sometimes ("ye" and "you") more faithful to the text of Scripture when it distinguishes between the plural and singular second person pronoun than our modern "you" which does not. When Psalm 82.6 uses both forms (KJV: "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most high"), Matthew Poole infers here that "ye" is directed towards the Jewish magistrates, but "all of you" encompasses "not only the rulers of Israel, but of all other nations." Such distinctions in the text of Scripture are obliterated by slavishly adhering to the modern preference for exclusively utilizing only the "you" form of the second person plural, as in "Gods you are, I have declared it, You are sons of Him Most High" (Psalm 82A, 2009 ed.). And for purposes of a versified Psalter, a great potential for rhyming is lost when traditional language is excised.

"Thou", "thee", "thy" and "thine" extend the range of rhyming and provide a contrast with "I", "me" and "mine" in a manner which "you" and "yours" fail to do. In the Penguin Rhyming Dictionary the word "you" has a mere page of words which rhyme with it. The word "your" throws up just 17 words, few of which can be used in the plural form: doer, brewer, sewer, ewer, skewer, skua, Dewar, viewer, wrongdoer, pursuer; reviewer, evildoer, tamandua (tree-living mammal), Porirua (New Zealand city), Potorua, revenuer (US revenue officer), interviewer. In other words there is virtually no word for a hymnist, writing in the language of devotion concerning the personal relationship of the worshiper with Almighty God, that rhymes with "yours". The word "thine" however, has a page and a half of words which rhyme - about 500 words. The word "thee" has virtually an innumerable number of words to rhyme with it, including most adverbs, all listed in many pages in the Rhyming Dictionary. What opportunities for creativity this gives to the Christian poet. (Geoff Thomas, "In Praise of 'Thee' and 'Thou,'" Christian Renewal, March 11, 2002, Vol. 20, No. 12)

Aside from the issue of ecclesiastical language, there are concerns about the tunes employed in the new Psalter. To acknowledge one notable step forward, the designated tune for Psalm 135A has been changed from the more challenging "How Good The Lord Is" to the more familiar "Austria." Meanwhile, the complex "Russia" from Psalm 119X remains in 119W, while the stirring "Russian Hymn" (originally "God Save the Tsar!", the national anthem of the Russian Empire), is now included (119K), though at the expense of the pleasant "Morning Star" (119K, 1973 ed.). As a personal matter, this writer is disappointed to see the tune "Irish" dropped from usage in this edition. Of greater concern, however, is the inclusion of at least nine Christmas carol tunes ("Noel" used in 21A and 89B; "Veni Emmanuel" in 22B and 42B; "Bunessan" in 23C; "Normandy Carol" in 29B; "God Rest You Merry, Gentlemen" in 47C; "Forest Green" in 66B; "Sussex Carol" in 84C; "Christmas" in 117A; and "Coventry Carol" in 119S). While it is to be acknowledged that tunes are adiaphora and familiarity can be a strength when adapting a tune from hymn usage to Psalm accompaniment, sometimes the associations of a tune can be detrimental because they are distracting, and in this case, the connections with Christmas caroling seem particularly problematic. New tunes are not objectionable because they are contemporary compositions, or included for the first time, and when a Psalter is revised, such are expected; but new tunes with theological baggage such as strong associations to a religious holiday that violates the regulative principle of worship for which the RPCNA stands, in this opinion of this writer, are not an improvement.

It is in the areas of translational and theological accuracy that my own concerns chiefly reside. The men who wrote the 1673 Puritan Preface to the 1650 Scottish Metrical Psalter (including John Owen, Matthew Poole, Thomas Watson, Thomas Manton and other luminaries and superb Hebrew scholars) were able to say:

But then ’tis meet that these divine composures should be represented to us in a fit translation, lest we want David, in David; while his holy ecstasies are delivered in a flat and bald expression. The translation which is now put into thy hands cometh nearest to the original of any that we have seen, and runneth with such a fluent sweetness, that we thought fit to recommend it to thy Christian acceptance; some of us having used it already, with great comfort and satisfaction.

Fidelity to the Hebrew text in an English versification ought to be the chief goal of a modern Psalter to which all other appropriate aims are subordinate. I have not yet seen a perfect English Psalter, but I am concerned that a Psalter revision be an improvement in the areas of faithfulness to the Biblical text and not a step backwards.

Specific examples of such backwards steps in the new Psalter include:

• Messianic Psalms: The phrase "kiss the Son" (Ps. 2.12), which is such an important witness to the mediatorial kingship of Christ, a doctrine which is represented in the historic Covenanter blue banner ("For Christ's Crown & Covenant"), is replaced with the generic "Honor Him" (2B and 2C) and "be sincere in your devotion" (2D), both of which substantially weaken the Biblical proclamation here that it is the Son of God, Prince Messiah, who rules the kings and judges of the earth. To "kiss" (a token of subjection) "the Son" (that is, Christ) is a most notable and emphatic command directed to the kings and judges of the earth with respect to Him who is "Lord of lords, and King of kings" (Rev. 17.14), that it's dilution with such banal expressions can only serve to weaken what is otherwise a strong statement of the kingship (government) and the Sonship (person) of Christ. The phrase "this day have I begotten thee" (Ps. 2.7), an important witness to the eternal Sonship of Christ, is replaced with "I have brought You forth this day" (2B and 2C). In Psalm 8 the phrase "For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour" (v. 5), rendered "For Thou a little lower hast Him than the angels made; A crown of glory and renown Hast placed upon his head" (8A, 1973 ed.) and "Next to God You have made man, With light and honor crowned" (8B, 1973 ed.), is translated thus in the new Psalter: "Yet You created him to be Just less than one divine; You gave him honor as a crown, And made his glory shine" (8A). This new rendering, so far from being an improvement, sounds positively Arian on the surface of it. Hebrews 2, however, explicitly cites this passage in affirming the Sonship of Christ. In light of the fact that the New King James Version (NKJV) style of capitalization is employed in this Psalter, the lower case "him" is conspicuous in its failure to acknowledge the "him" and "his" in question to be Christ (even the phrase "son of man" in v. 4 is not capitalized), and clearly diminishes his divinity, and thus the Messianic import of this Psalm. Why should these sorts of downgrades in both translational and theological accuracy be made when the aim of the revision is to improve upon that which went before?

• The insertion of uninspired words in Psalms: In Psalms 24B, 150C and 150D Hallelujah choruses are added which are not in the original text. There is no justification for this from a Psalter produced by a church which adheres to exclusive psalmody, not even when the people added to Psalm 118 during the triumphal entry of our Lord into Jerusalem. Adding uninspired words to the text, no matter how well-intentioned, and singing them to God in worship is quite simply a violation of the regulative principle of worship which the RPCNA is committed to upholding both in word and in practice.

• Refrains: Psalms 19C and 47C use refrains in a way that Scripture does not. The rearranging of verses out of order for purposes of creating a refrain go far beyond the simple versification of a metrical Psalm into the realm of re-writing. Opponents of exclusive psalmody often argue that a versified Psalm is no longer in fact the inspired Word of God. This writer does not agree if it can be shown that fidelity to the original text underlies the versification, but when a Psalm is re-written so significantly as to skip over a verse and consign it to the refrain of each stanza, or take two verses and turn them into a refrain that gets repeated after earlier verses but out of order, then this gives merit to the argument that it is in fact a human composition based on a Biblical text rather than a faithful rendering of a versified Psalm. Oddly, in Psalm 136B, a proper (Biblical) refrain, verse 7b ("for his mercy endureth forever" in the KJV or "His love endures forever" in The Book of Psalms for Worship), is omitted, and this happens again in Psalm 136C when verses 17 and 18 are compressed together, with one legitimate refrain employed instead of two as used by the text (see below).

• Intermingling, compression and omission of verses: Psalms 6B (vv. 1-2), 8A and 8C (vv. 7-8), 22C (vv. 14-15), 44A (vv. 7-8), 105B (vv. 11-12), 136A (vv. 11-12), 136B (v. 7) and 136C (vv. 17-18) intermingle or compress, sometimes to the point of omission, Bible verses. Switching back and forth between a pair of verses to achieve versification or, especially, compressing verses to the point of omission is treading on dangerous ground, in this writer's opinion. This makes at the very least for a reductionistic and short-circuited translation effort.

• Translation choices: Psalm 23D (2009 ed.) takes the familiar phrase "Yea, though I walk in death's dark vale" (Psalm 23A, 1973 ed.) and renders it "Though I walk the valley where death hides the light." Psalm 77.18a (rendered "The voice of thy thunder was in the heaven:" in the KJV and "Amid the whirlwinds of the sky Thy voice in thunder pealed" in Psalm 77C, 1973 ed.) is now rendered "Across the sky tornadoes roared" (Psalm 77B, 2009 ed.). These are two instances of translation renderings that leave this writer scratching his head.

This not meant to be an exhaustive list of flaws, but an illustration of the types of concerns shared by this writer and others about the new Psalter. Though I love the 1650 Psalter, I am not opposed to using other editions, as my own family practice evidences (though my stated concerns about the 2009 Psalter do have some application to the 1973 Psalter, it seems to me that the newer edition goes beyond earlier flaws). And I have striven to look for the good as well as the bad in this new edition. But from the larger perspective of what is good for the church, I fear that the tendency of the RPCNA to issue new editions of the Psalter every generation or so by the use of ever-more modern versions (the RPCNA used the 1650 Psalter until the end of the 19th century, and since then new versions have been published in 1889, 1912, 1929, 1950, 1973 and 2009), rather than strengthening the witness to exclusive psalmody, is in fact undermining this goal, and diluting the power of God's Word in the life and witness of the church. While Psalters can be improved, the concept of "generational Psalters" -- that is, that each generation ought to have its own particular edition of the Psalter -- seems to only promote the fracturing of the church by pitting one generation's form of worship against the preceding and the following generations. Fidelity in the translation of the Psalms has been sacrificed for the sake of modernity, and to what end? The improvements in the new edition -- and there are some -- are outweighed by its deficiencies, some of which are merely tacky translation renderings or distracting melodies and some of which actually tread on very dangerous theological ground. I wish that I could recommend this Psalter, and but for the love of Christ's church, and the good of the RPCNA which has a special place in my heart, and with humility, I can only do so if it is used with discernment.

I wish to express appreciation to both Rev. Adam King (RPCNA) and Sean McDonald for their invaluable assistance in providing information and insights as I took up this review. I also wish to add that I remain a great fan of Crown & Covenant Publications and am thankful for their many labors to promote the singing of Psalms, and for their encouragement to review this Psalter and speak my mind freely.

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received one or more of the products or services mentioned above for free from the publisher in the hope that I would mention it on my blog. Regardless, I only recommend products or services I use personally and believe will be good for my readers. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

Rules for the KJV Translation

The rules for the translators of the Authorized (King James) Version of the Bible were as follows:

1. The first instructed them to make the "Bishop's Bible," so called, the basis of their work, altering it no further than fidelity to the originals required.

2. The second rule requires that the mode then used of spelling the proper names should be retained as far as might be.

3. The third rule requires "the old ecclesiastical words to be kept," such as "church" instead of "congregation."

4. The fourth rule prescribes, that where a word has different meanings, that is to be preferred which has the general sanction of the most ancient Fathers, regard being had to "the propriety of the place, and the analogy of faith."

5. The fifth rule directs that the divisions into chapters be altered as little as may be.

6. The sixth rule, agreeably to Dr. Reynolds's wise suggestion at Hampton Court, prohibits all notes or comments, thus obliging the translators to make their version intelligible without those dangerous helps.

7. The seventh rule provides for marginal references to parallel or explanatory passages.

8. The eighth rule enjoins that each man in each company shall separately examine the same chapter or chapters, and put the translation into the best shape he can. The whole company must then come together, and compare what they have done, and agree on what shall stand. Thus in each company, according to the number of members, there would be from seven to ten distinct and carefully labored revisions, the whole to be compared, and digested into one copy of the portion of the Bible assigned to each particular company.

9. The ninth rule directs, that as fast as any company shall, in this manner, complete any one of the sacred books, it is to be sent to each of the other companies, to be critically reviewed by them all.

10. The tenth rule prescribes, that if any company, upon reviewing a book so sent to them, find any thing doubtful or unsatisfactory, they are to note the places, and their reasons for objecting thereto, and send it back to the company from whence it came. If that company should not concur in the suggestions thus made, the matter was to be finally arranged at a general meeting of the chief persons of all the companies at the end of the work. Thus every part of the Bible would be fully considered, first, separately, by each member of the company to which it was originally assigned; secondly, by that whole company in concert; thirdly, by the other five companies severally; and fourthly, by the general committee of revision. By this judicious plan, each part must have been closely scrutinized at least fourteen times.

11. The eleventh rule provides, that in case of any special difficulty or obscurity, letters shall be issued by authority to any learned man in the land, calling for his judgment thereon.

12. The twelfth rule requires every bishop to notify the clergy of his diocese as to the work in hand, and to "move and charge as many as, being skilful in the tongues, have taken pains in that kind, to send his particular observations" to some one of the companies.

13. The thirteenth rule appoints the directors of the different companies.

14. The fourteenth rule names five other translations to be used, "when they agree better with the text than the Bishop's Bible." These are Tyndale's; Matthew's, which is by Tyndale and John Rogers; Coverdale's; Whitchurch's, which is "Cranmer's,'' or the "Great Bible," and was printed by Whitchurch; and the Geneva Bible.

To these rules, Which were delivered to the Translators, there appears to have been added another, providing that, besides the directors of the six companies, "three or four of the most ancient and grave divines in either of the Universities, not employed in translating be designated by the Vice-Chancellors and Heads of Colleges, to be overseers of the Translation, as well Hebrew as Greek, for the better observation of the fourth rule."

Tribute to the KJV

The following is smattering of quotes from notable examples of piety and/or scholarship as to the merits of the Authorized, or King James Version of the Bible.

Ashbel Green, Lectures on the Shorter Catechism of the Presbyterian Church in the United States, Vol. 1, pp. 52-53:

The author is not willing to close this extended note, in which he has attempted to correct what he conscientiously believes to be an error in the common English version of the New Testament, without remarking, that he is not among those who believe that version to be very faulty, and of course to need very frequent corrections. On the contrary, he considers it as one of the very best translations that ever was, or ever can be made; and he has never seen any other English version, even of a single book of this part of the sacred volume, which, taken as a whole, he thought equal to the vulgar version. Yet to suppose that this version, the work of fallible men, is absolutely perfect, is an extreme on the other side. Nothing but the original is perfect. If it can be shown that, in a few instances, the eminently learned, and upright, and pious men, who formed the vulgar version, have, through that imperfection which cleaves to every thing human, not given the best rendering of a particular phrase or passage, let this be candidly shown; and if it be satisfactorily shown, a service is certainly rendered to the cause of truth. Whether this has been done, in the present instance, let competent judges decide.

William S. Plumer, Commentary on Romans, p. 20:

Some of the older English versions from quaintness, if not from elegance, do often give the sense in a striking way. But none have, as a whole, been comparable to the authorized English version. Its amazing mastery of our mother tongue, its pure Anglo-Saxon diction and its very careful rendering of the true idea of the author still place it far above all competition.

George Bernard Shaw, The Adventures of the Black Girl in Her Search for God, pp. 62-67:

In all these instances the Bible means the translation authorized by King James the First of the best examples in ancient Jewish literature of natural and political history, of poetry, morality, theology, and rhapsody. The translation was extraordinarily well done because to the translators what they were translating was not merely a curious collection of ancient books written by different authors in different stages of culture, but the Word of God divinely revealed through his chosen and expressly inspired scribes. ... In this state of exaltation they made a translation so magnificent that to this day the common human Britisher or citizen of the United States of North America accepts and worships it as a single book by a single author, the book being the Book of Books and the author being God. Its charm, its promise of salvation, its pathos, and its majesty have been raised to transcendence by Handel, who can still make atheists cry and give materialists the thrill of the sublime with his Messiah. Even the ignorant, to whom religion is crude fetishism and magic, prize it as a paper talisman that will exorcize ghosts, prevent witnesses from lying, and, if carried devoutly in a soldier’s pocket, stop bullets. ... As to Bible science, it has over the nineteenth-century materialistic fashion in biology the advantage of being a science of life and not an attempt to substitute physics and chemistry for it; but it is hopelessly pre-evolutionary; its descriptions of the origin of life and morals are obviously fairy tales; its astronomy is terra centric; its notions of the starry universe are childish; its history is epical and legendary: in short, people whose education in these departments is derived from the Bible are so absurdly misinformed as to be unfit for public employment, parental responsibility, or the franchise. As an encyclopedia, therefore, the bible must be shelved with the first edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica as a record of what men once believed, and a measure of how far they have left their obsolete beliefs behind.

The Continuators of Matthew Poole's English Annotations:

After this, King James coming to the crown, being a prince of great learning and judgment, and observing the different usage of some words in his age from the usage of then In King Henry VIII or in Queen Elizabeth's time, and also the several mistakes (though of a minute nature) in those more ancient versions, was pleased to employ divers learned men in making a new translation, which is that which at this day is generally used. With what reverence to former translators, what labor, and care, and pains they accomplished their work, the reader may see at large in their preface prefixed to those copies that are printed in folio, and in their epistle to King James in our Bibles of a lesser form; of which translation (though it may not be with its more minute error) yet I think it may be said that it is hardly exceeded by that of any other church.