Manifest Difference between EP and the Rest

[Contra_Mundum]

Once again, directly realted to the issue of the LXX use of these "terms" is:

That in what is ostensibly the first Christian singing-in-worship book is a composition, labeled Psalmos which is entirely without the Hebrew canon. "Psalm" 151.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Just to jump in on translation, I would concur with Bacon that a literal rendering from the Hebrew has enough dissimilarities between Hebrew and English that a wooden-literal, word-for-word, one-word-equals-one-word, translation is impossible. As he said rightly, "It cannot be done." And the NT writers did not treat the Hebrew as a wooden-literal, word-for-word, one-word-equals-one-word, translation.

For example, as Bacon rightly points out:

"Psalm 8:5/Hebrews 2:7 - The passage in Psalm 8:5 says, "œFor thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour." The word I want to discuss is the word translated here as "œangels." The Hebrew word for angel is "œmal´akh" but that is not the word in Psalm 8:5. The word there is "œelohim." The word "œelohim" is usually translated "œGod." Why is it translated here "œthou hast made him a little lower than the angels" when the word that we are translating is "œelohim"? There is not a single other instance in all of the Old Testament in which the word "œelohim" is translated "œangels." It is translated "œGod" 2,346 times and "œangels" once. Why is it translated "œangels" here?
Note Hebrews 2:7 which reads, "œThou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands." We translate the word "œelohim" in the Old Testament as "œangels" because the writer of Hebrews uses it that way. Actually, he is giving authority to a translation of the Old Testament called the Septuagint. The Septuagint translated "œelohim" as "œaggeloi," from which we get the word "œangels" in English. The Septuagint translated "œelohim" as "œaggeloi" and the writer of Hebrews confirmed "œaggeloi." Do not misunderstand me. I am not saying the Septuagint is inspired, but when an inspired author of the New Testament uses a passage from the Septuagint and, therefore, the passage becomes part of the New Testament, the New Testament passage is inspired. Jude quoted a portion of the Book of Enoch, but that does not make the entire Book of Enoch inspired. It does make that portion of the book that he included in Jude inspired. It is not inspired because it in the Book of Enoch, but because it is in the Book of Jude.
We know that we have a correct translation of the word "œelohim" as "œangels" because we have an inspired interpretation of that word in Hebrews 2:7. If the writer of Hebrews used the word "œangels" to translate the Hebrew word "œelohim," was he paraphrasing or not? Would the same objection apply to him that applies to the metrical Psalms?" (cf. Isaiah 7:14 and Matthew 1:23. - Bacon deals well there too)

Here is his summary, which I would agree with:

Summary: the Force of the Objection

So we are back to the question of the logical force of the objection. If the objection has force with respect to the singing of the Psalms it has the same force with respect to the reading of the Scripture. What is that force? It is an admission that our translations are not as perfect as we would like. We should always be ready to submit our translations to further revision. The Authorized Version of the Bible has not been revised since 1769. Even it could use some work: there are a number of archaic words.

Here is what the objectors are seemingly trying to say. "œYou folks are not really singing the words of God. You are just singing the words of man as they understand the words of God to be. And that is the same thing we are doing. When we sing John Wesley or Fanny Crosby or Isaac Watts, we are just singing their interpretation of the word of God. That is all we are doing and that is all you folks are doing when you sing a paraphrase."

But the objection breaks down. Even if I were reading the New International Version of the Bible, you would still recognize it as a poor translation of the Word of God. But if I were to stand in the pulpit and read Matthew Henry´s commentary on the same passage, no one would understand that to mean that I was reading the Word of God. That is the difference between singing Isaac Watts and singing even the poorest translation of the Psalms.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Can anyone show me where the RPCNA Psalter has changed the meaning of Psalm 98, as compared to the AV/KJV version? I personally feel that it is extremely faithful to the Hebrew text. I know I have only studied Hebrew for a year, but when you start to argue about translating Hebrew -> English literally, it shows a little about your knowledge of Hebrew.

For example, in the Psalms especially, there will be a sentence composed of 5 Hebrew words, but when translated to English, we end up with 12 or more words. This happens repeatedly, and is carried over into our "literal" translations, and no one complains or feels as if they "dont' have the Word of God." The Psalter is a faithful translation of Hebrew, and I will stand by that claim by God's grace, until God proves to me otherwise.

 

[Peter]

Gabe, et al, I feel these sorts of objections are the death pangs of uninspired hymnody. A few desperate fits of violence before the end

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Did the first Greek-speaking Christians sing all the songs in their hymnal?

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

In the early church they sang God's book of Praise (Psalms 1-150) (as well as reading them and preaching them).

As Chrysostom wrote, "David is always in thier mouths..."

Chrysostom, Augustine, Caius, John Cassian, Jerome, Hippolytus, Josephus, Pliny, Philo, (and many more), all attest to this.

The oldest Christian "poem" we find is written by Clement of Alexandria in 202 A.D. but no mention is made whether this was written to be sung or used on worship anywhere. Its a non-issue on this topic. but important overall since such would have been over 130 years after the early church settled in.

Valentinian, Bardesanes and his son Harmonius (all Gnostics) in the third century resorted to writing hymns to propagate thier theology, as Tertullian records.

Ephraem Syrus (379 A.D.) wrote a large number of hymns against the Gnostics to teach the people who were being influecned to sin "in the other direction" towards orthodoxy.

In the 4th century Arius wrote many hymns for the same purpose of propagating heresy. Many orthodox writers wrote hymns, again, to counter this, not to sing in worship, but to sing against Arius among the common folk.

Augustine wrote a hymn after the 119 Psalm in order to cope with the Donatists who also wrote hymns to propagate thier theology.

It seems hymns came into play as a result of refuting bad theology.
This had nothing to do with singing these hymns in church. All of those who wrote these hymns attest to singing the Book of Praise as corporate worship for the early church. But these other hymns made thier way slowly into the church during the 5-8th centuries even after entire councils bid the church to keep to the Book of Praise.

In 563 the looseness continued where the council of Braga said "besides the Psalms or canonical Scriptures nothing be sung in the churches."

In 841 A.D. Agobard, archbishop of Lynons said the same thing, but stressed the Psalms.

So the start of it all seems to be heretics that wanted to propagate thier theology easily.

Can you even imagine Arius writing an Arian tune to propagate BAD theology?

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Matt,

I haven't been able to keep up. Has anyone mentioned that the early church use to sing parts of the New Testament epistles at their gatherings. I had read that years ago. I can't prove that. Just wondering if anyone had mentioned it or if it could be validated.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Originally posted by webmaster
Can you even imagine Arius writing an Arian tune to propagate BAD theology?

Yes I can. The Wesleys did it. They use to be in the Hymn wars against the Calvinists during their revivals.

Charles wrote some cool stuff though. 'And Can It Be' is one of my favorite Hymns.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Matt, along the lines of the 'history' to RPW/EP and other tenets of this position, the following might be of some assistance:

Early Church believers loved the Psalms a great deal and made much use of them. Jerome says,

"Wherever you turn, the laborer at the plough sings Alleluia: the toiling reaper beguiles his work with Psalms: the vinedresser as he prunes the vine with his curved pruning hook sings something of David's. These are the songs of this province: these are the laborer's instruments."

The Council of Laodicea, about A.D. 381, prohibited the ecclesiastical use of uninspired or "private psalms." The Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451 confirmed this decree. Apparently this decree did not prevent hymnographers from expressing their religious ideas in the form of poetry, so it was renewed in a more precise but less rigorous form by the Council of Braga (A.D. 561) which decreed that poetic compositions were not to be used in the service of praise. The fourth Synod of Toledo in the 7th century reiterated the same proscription.

Hymns, on the other hand, were used by the heretics to spread their filth. Valentius and Marcion brought new hymns to Rome to spread their Gnostic heresy. The Arian heresy was also propagated by hymns. Augustine reproached the Donatists for "singing psalms of human composition, which arouse them like the stirring notes of the trumpet of the battlefield."

Athanasias (A.D. 367) says of the Psalter (after naming the 27 books of the New Testament for the first time):

"I believe that a man can find nothing more glorious than these Psalms: for they embrace the whole life of man, the affections of his mind, and the motions of his soul. To praise and glorify God he can select a psalm suited to every occasion, and thus will find they were written for him."

Ambrose (A.D. 385), one of the strongest early Church leaders, says:

"The Law instructs, history informs, prophecy predicts, correction censures and morals exhort. In the Book of Psalms you find all of these. The Psalter deserves to be called the praise of God, the glory of man, the voice of the Church, and the most beneficial confession of faith."

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Originally posted by puritancovenanter

Originally posted by webmaster
Can you even imagine Arius writing an Arian tune to propagate BAD theology?

Yes I can. The Wesleys did it. They use to be in the Hymn wars against the Calvinists during their revivals.

Charles wrote some cool stuff though. 'And Can It Be' is one of my favorite Hymns.

Yes, I understand, but think of it - what would Arius say?

Can yo see him writing a hymn that Christ isn't God?

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by puritancovenanter

Originally posted by webmaster
Can you even imagine Arius writing an Arian tune to propagate BAD theology?

Yes I can. The Wesleys did it. They use to be in the Hymn wars against the Calvinists during their revivals.

Charles wrote some cool stuff though. 'And Can It Be' is one of my favorite Hymns.

Let's not forget the Battle of Hymn of the (so-called) Republic. It was written to propogate Unitarianism and genocide.