The switch between the two versions of Psalm 2 have some definite language differences, after all they are translations from very different times in history, but the meaning seems to leave the same emotions with you once you finish reading it out loud.
One major difference is obviously the old English versus how English is spoken now. Its amazing to me how translators figure out exactly what each word or line translates to after all the filters and influences of societies and cultures alter the language and meanings over the years. Also, rhythmically the two versions are different. The older Psalm II seems to rhythm, which could drastically change how the listener receives the information. Thats another interesting thing i pondered after realizing this difference... how much does rhythm effect the interpretation of the language and meaning? I would assume its a great deal because just like music in a film, it drastically changes the feeling you get even though its the exact same information being said or viewed with or without the music.
The idea of rhythm is really interesting, and I agree that it can definitely change the way people receive information (and maybe even the message as well). To me, it seems that when something has strong rhythm it is more performative and adds to the idea of ritual and community, whereas something that lacks rhythm might seem more declarative and play into themes of hierarchy and distance the listener from the deliverer.
ReplyDeletegood observations.
I agree with your idea about rhythm...it seems that rhythm and rhyme would be natural steps in the translation of the psalms to fit with the pilgrims of the new world. The rhythm and rhyme of the psalms and the fact that they would be sung all add to a community-driven reading (as opposed to individual, private readings).
ReplyDelete