Talk:Psalms

I added the Septuagint and a translation of it to the articles of the first 51 psalms, only to be told that there was a discussion over 5 years ago, and it was decided there to only put the text of each psalm in Hebrew, a translation of the Hebrew (the JPS), and the KJV. But I think this decision needs to be rediscussed. The Septuagint is too historically important not to include, and it represents a different enough (and older) textual tradition than the Masoretic text. But since having 5 different versions of each psalm's text is too much, I think there should be a single table in each psalm's article with each verse in Hebrew, Greek from the Septuagint, English from the KJV, and maybe Latin from the Vulgate too. So Psalm 1 would look something like this:

I used a script to add the first 51 psalms in Greek, so it wouldn't be that hard for me to use another one and do this for all the psalms. What do you all think?💖平沢唯を愛してる💖 (talk) 00:31, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. However, you don't mention where you're sourcing the Greek from. IMO a modern eclectic edition would be ideal, as we can't include variants. For the MT it doesn't matter nearly as much because the text is so much more stable, but similarly Ginsburg or Cassuto would be best. GordonGlottal (talk) 02:50, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm sourcing it from this website, which seems to be getting it from the 1870 edition of Brenton's Septuagint 💖平沢唯を愛してる💖 (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Have you looked at the table above on a mobile? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm on mobile right now, and I made it on mobile too. It looks fine, except that maybe the English column should be in the middle so users can read it alongside the Hebrew or the Greek. Also, if you think it looks bad, you can always change it, like this for example:

💖平沢唯を愛してる💖 (talk) 03:09, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

"ἀσεβῶν" In Greek that typically means "impious" in religious contexts, and "disrespectful" in secular contexts. Who translated it as "ungodly"? Dimadick (talk) 12:16, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

L. C. L Brenton. Is there a difference between impious and ungodly? Also, Strong's Concordance defines it as "ungodly, impious, irreverent", and that's how it's defined on wiktionary as well. 💖平沢唯を愛してる💖 (talk) 20:00, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

The key problem I see with three languages in one table - worse than having very narrow columns or very few verses on mobile - is that I am afraid that readers would think the English is a translation of the Hebrew and the Greek, while KJV tried to be a translation but is dated, and more modern translations have been rejected as copyright violations. I believe that the way we had - Hebrew and KJV below it, not on the side - served readers better. The few who would profit from the Greek can always look at external links, and for more modern translations, the same. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:34, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

First of all, can you please explain what's wrong with the KJV? It is a translation of the Hebrew and Greek, and it's the most influential English translation of the Bible, so it should absolutely stay. Even the JPS mostly just mirrors it. Second, any disclaimers or reservations about the text can go just above the table, or in a note. We could note that the Masoretic and Septuagint sometimes differ from each other because they come from different textual traditions, and put an external link to the translation of each one. This should be in a note so that it's not intrusive for most readers, who can't read Greek or Hebrew. If there's anything you don't like about the KJV, that can also go in a note. Thirdly, I don't see why the Hebrew should be in the page's body but the Greek in an external link. As many (if not more) readers would benefit from having the Greek than the Hebrew, because:

1. More people can read and understand Greek than Hebrew. The worldwide Greek and Jewish populations are the same, but Greek is used in most Orthodox (and to a lesser extent, Catholic) churches and more often studied by academics.

2. The majority of readers are probably going to be Christian, not Jewish

3. The Septuagint was historically much more influential than the Masoretic text. It's the version that's usually quoted in the New Testament, and the one that most Christians in the Middle Ages would have prayed. 💖平沢唯を愛してる💖 (talk) 05:08, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

English is not my first language, I must have said something wrong to give you the impression that I thought something was "wrong" with the KJV. It's our own source text, highly influential, set by composers ... - no doubt about that. However, as far as I understand, it's by now dated, in choice of some words and in things that would now be phrased differently, therefore I'd not place it besides one of the others. There's also the problem of different verse numbering between Hebrew and English that I'd find confusing when in one table. As for your points 1-3: they make me think about dropping Hebrew also, but I try to speak up for minorities ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:53, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response, I've been really busy lately. Anyway, I thought you have a problem with the KJV because you said that it "tried to be" a translation, implying it isn't one. Now I see your point, and I agree. As beautiful and influential as the KJV is, it is kind of hard to read for modern audiences. There are a few other public domain Bible translations, of which the one I would prefer is the ASV. But still, the KJV being too hard to read isn't the issue I wanted to fix, so I'm fine with leaving it there for now. And besides, people who look for psalms on Wikipedia are probably there to read about their historical context, not to use Wikipedia as a Bible, so we should use a historical translation like the KJV.

As for dropping Hebrew, that wasn't my intention at all. The psalms were originally written in Hebrew, so it's important to leave it there. Anyone who understands Hebrew would benefit more from reading the psalms in Hebrew than English. I just want to add Greek too, because the same logic applies there: anyone who understands Greek would benefit more from reading the psalms in Greek than English. They're less layers of translation away from the original.

As for the verse numbering, I say we just go with the English numbering (since that one's more common when referencing verses), and add a note saying that the Hebrew numbering is different. Psalm 3 is one of those psalms, and here is how I think it should look:

I think this section is lacking a discussion of MODERN music (including gospel going back to the 50's) interpreting or otherwisae being "based" specifically on the various psalms. I mean, as an example, the large number of gospel and other recordings specifically referencing the 23rd Psalm as well as the U2 composition entitled "40" which interprets the 40th Psalm. I can do some of the research, but I wonder if anyone has more time and a better access to a decent compendium of this material. 98.226.114.141 (talk) 02:02, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Good idea. Some such things are mentioned in the individual psalms articles, see Psalm 23#Songs, and versions of a specific psalm should go there. A short summary here, based on good references, would be good. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:29, 30 April 2025 (UTC)