Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1999 :: January ::
Re: Psalm 46
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.0080  Sunday, 17 January 1999.

[1]     From:   John Savage <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Saturday, 16 Jan 1999 15:04:41 -0500
        Subj:   SHK 10.0067 Re: Psalm 46

[2]     From:   Sara Vandenberg <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Saturday, 16 Jan 1999 13:24:49 -0800 (PST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0079 Re: Psalm 46; Sh. in Love; Spin-off

[3]     From:   Pat Dolan <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Saturday, 16 Jan 1999 16:10:59 -0600 (CST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0079 Re: Psalm 46; Sh. in Love; Spin-off

[4]     From:   Richard J Kennedy <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Saturday, 16 Jan 1999 17:35:36 -0800 (PST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0067 Re: Psalm 46


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Savage <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Saturday, 16 Jan 1999 15:04:41 -0500
Subject: Re: Psalm 46
Comment:        SHK 10.0067 Re: Psalm 46

>As Peter Hillyar-Russ has pointed out the "Psalm 46" code doesn't work
>without the suppression of the word "Selah" at the end of the Psalm.

As Anthony Burgess pointed out, the salutation isn't part of the psalm.

>Of course it would take a good deal longer, and a great deal more effort,
>to find a more exact parallel for the "Psalm 46" reference, but I'm sure
>that there is something out there

I look forward to seeing it.

>P.S - I was re-reading Charles Nicholl's "The Reckoning" yesterday.  The
>book contains ample references to one John Savage who made "a solemn
>'oath' to kill Queen Elizabeth", and took part in the Babington plot.

Yes, I've read about the chap.  I would claim him as one of my (many)
illustrious ancestors were it not that Elizabeth Jenkins, in her
"Elizabeth the Great," reports that he was nothing more than a flunky to
Babington- and not all that bright.
>who's to say it had to be Shakespeare
>himself that did the adjusting?  Could a scholarly wag have made the
>adjustments as a little private joke?

Makes sense, as a possibility, to me.

>No, incorrect.  There is no evidence that Shakespeare worked on the King
>James Bible and no reason to think he would have, since the translators
>were almost all Hebrew or Greek scholars from the Universities.

May I suggest there are two things wrong with the above?  All those who
wrote the King James version of the Bible did not work directly from the
original; they did not all know Hebrew, nor was it required to do the
work.

As Thomas Larque, in a later post on this topic, mentions, the following
was in the instructions to those who worked on the new Bible: "It is
laid down that the ordinary Bible read in the Church (commonly called
the Bishop's Bible) shall be followed and as little altered as the truth
of the original shall permit."  Many, in other words, "translated" from
an "original" that was already in English.

The other point is this (since I'm the one who raised this "Psalm 46"
question most recently): my claim was that it would seem that either
Will Shakespeare took part in the writing or someone who did inserted
his name, perhaps as a jest, into the psalm.

The latter is perfectly possible and, given the remarkable nature of
#46, even quite likely.

>It must be remembered that it only works at all if the word 'Selah' is
>not included in the counting.

As is mentioned elsewhere, Anthony Burgess points out that the
salutation isn't part of the psalm.

>Hugh Black of Canada who 'deciphered' the first four lines on
>Shakespeare's tombstone as "FRA BA WRT EAR AY," of course this means
>"Francis Bacon Wrote Shakespeare's Plays."

Thanks.  An excellent example of what I've been talking about.  Because
usually this is what one gets: something so vague, so ridiculously
ambiguous, that it's like the predictions of Nostradamus, who, as you
know, predicted everything from the emergence of Hitler to the death of
Princess Diana-depending on whom you're talking to.

The key point is that the Psalm 46 deal isn't like that at all.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sara Vandenberg <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Saturday, 16 Jan 1999 13:24:49 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 10.0079 Re: Psalm 46; Sh. in Love; Spin-off
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0079 Re: Psalm 46; Sh. in Love; Spin-off

The notes of one translator, John Bois, can be found in MS CCC312, f.
61-80, in the Corpus Christi College Library, Oxford University.  There
is also a modern edition: John Blois, _Translating for King James; being
a true copy of the only notes made by a translator of King James's
Bible, the Authorized Version, as the Final Committee of Review revised
the translation of Romans through Revelation at Stationers' Hall in
London in 1610-1611._  Edited by Ward Allen (Nashville: Vanderbilt
University Press, 1969).  Blois was a noted Greek scholar, and Anthony
Walker's 17th c biography of Blois is included in Allen's edition.

Sara van den Berg
University of Washington

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Pat Dolan <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Saturday, 16 Jan 1999 16:10:59 -0600 (CST)
Subject: 10.0079 Re: Psalm 46; Sh. in Love; Spin-off
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0079 Re: Psalm 46; Sh. in Love; Spin-off

Just an idle thought or four.

If one believes that Shakespeare encoded his name in the text of the
Psalms (I don't), does that mean that one believes that Shakespeare
didn't believe in a God who would punish messing with Its text in such
an egotistical way?

Is there any evidence that Shakespeare wrote anything for free?

Can we conclude that unattributed translations of the Bible with the
names James and Joyce in them must have been written by our greatest
modernist polymath?

Given what Shakespeare did with his other sources, would you trust him
with one of the most revered books of the most revered Book?

                Pat

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Richard J Kennedy <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Saturday, 16 Jan 1999 17:35:36 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 10.0067 Re: Psalm 46
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0067 Re: Psalm 46

Because I'm an Oxfordian, I would just as soon that Shakespeare had
nothing to do with working on the KJV because Oxford was dead in 1604,
several years too much dead to be involved in the work.

And yet there it is, the poetry of the Bible that can be explained only
by a great poet being at the table, or divine intervention.  And
Shakespeare of Stratford was available and not up to much else in a
literary way. Could it be that his involvement with the theater all this
while could have been an objection to his name being included with those
great scholars and men of the church?

I don't doubt that all those appointed men labored to get the Greek,
Aramaic, Latin and whatever other language to its correct aspect, and
the loss of all the manuscript and letters between the groups, records
of meetings and so on might somehow be explained.  Perhaps it was the
King's wish that it be so. But then again there's the poetry of the
Book, and even including the previous work of Tyndale, there is much
poetry to explain that cannot be explained with reference to those 50
odd men appointed to do the work. The question is hardly closed.
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.