Differences in Translations of Psalm 2

While reading the two different translations of Psalm 2, I found it interesting to see how time period and intention can lead to very different interpretations of language. With the colonial translation, I see a greater emphasis on dominating other cultures and gaining new land. With the Alter translation I see less of an emphasis on cultural domination, but a stronger emphasis on the wrath of God. Both of these interpreations become obvious when looking at the word choice in each translation.

In these translations, we see a couple very distinct differences in language uesed. The first noticable difference is between the words "heathens" and "nations." The 1640 translation uses the word "heathens" in order to reference peoples of other lands. This is a word that carries many negative connotations and indicates an attitude of superiority towards other cultures. This is opposed to the use of the word "nations" in the modern translation. "Nations" is a much broader and more neutral term used to indicate members of other cultures and shows that Alter did not want to emphsize this point as much.

In addition to the use of the word "heathens," the colonial translation also emphasizes cultural domination with the line "thou shalt possess/ the utmost coasts abroad." This decree from God is highly indicative to these people's right to own the lands of other cultures. Alter's translation instead says "I shall give nations as your estate." While this does convey the same general idea, it does not carry such weighty words like "possess" to give a sense of entitlement.

While the colonial translation takes on a more dominating and superior tone, the Alter translation seems to emphasize the wrath of God more than the colonial. In Alter's translation, we see "Worship the lord in fear/ and exult in trembling." The words like "fear" and "trembling" are very submissive and indicate an attitude of fright towards God. The colonial translation instead says "Serve yee the lord with reverence/ rejoyce in him with fear." While this translation does include the word "fear," the concept of fright of God is not as greatly emphasized here. This is because in addition to rejoycing in fear, they are asked to serve with reverence.

After seeing these differences, some conclusions can be drawn as to how a colinal churchgoer in 1640 America would have interpreted this Psalm. It seems that a colonist reading this translation would be inclined to respect God. Their translation does display the power and might of God which would have commanded an attitude of fear and respect. More importantly, it seems that in the 1640 translation other cultures and lands are looked down upon. The colonists reading this Psalm are given a sense of entitlement and superiority by the use of the word "heathens." This may have been because the attitude of colonial expansion did take on a negative view of different cultures. They saw these cultures as inferior and may have used a Psalm like this to justify the taking of lands and exploitation of other cultures.