An aspect of the Psalms the grabbed me is the interpretation adaptations that happen based on the changes of the world. Previously, when I thought about the Psalms they seemed very set in stone with zero leeway but after going over two different translations and mulling it over for a few days they seem far stagnant. Today when we think of very old things they seem unchangeable but the two translations of the Psalms were fairly different. This idea kind of makes me wonder what the true original sounded like; I guess without having a full understanding of Hebrew I will never get the full effect. I also am curious as to what are things I think I know that was originally very different. I believe if something is broad enough than everyone will interpret it their own individual way. Psalms were meant to be sung so everyone would be able to be unified, often when we sing things we aren’t doing an in-depth analysis, just singing along. Maybe the interpretations happen when someone sits and really digs deep and thinks about each line and then adds in their own personal beliefs maybe even un-intentionally.
I agree strongly that it would be interesting to hear what the Psalms originally sounded like, especially if I understood ancient (or modern for that fact) Hebrew. It's true that since people interpret things differently and individually, the Psalms themselves might have been changed considerably over time. Perhaps reading a more original text would be an enlightening experience in the way that you would gain more insight into perhaps a more universal and traditional meaning. The Bay Book of Psalms and even Alter's translations definitely skew the writings in different ways. Seeing the Psalms without this cover of interpretation would definitely be something to behold, regardless of feelings towards the poems.
ReplyDelete