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 10.0117  Thursday, 21 January 1999.

[1]     From:   David Evett <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 20 Jan 1999 11:48:41 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0067 Re: Psalm 46

[2]     From:   Richard J Kennedy <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 20 Jan 1999 08:54:28 -0800 (PST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0102 Re: Psalm 46

[3]     From:   Peter Hillyar-Russ <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 21 Jan 1999 10:02:11 -0000
        Subj:   RE: SHAKSPER Digest - 19 Jan 1999 to 20 Jan 1999


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Evett <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 20 Jan 1999 11:48:41 -0500
Subject: 10.0067 Re: Psalm 46
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0067 Re: Psalm 46

In the event that the 46-46-46 collocation is not (as it seems to me
almost certain that it is) a coincidence, it need not be interpreted as
evidence that Shakespeare worked on the Authorized Version of the
Bible.  It is equally possible, and far more plausible, that some friend
or admirer of the playwright among the scholars (one of the Cambridge
group, if the original assignments were carried through), seeing the
opportunity, tinkered the draft enough to make it work-a compliment, not
a signature.

Fradubio Evett

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Richard J Kennedy <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 20 Jan 1999 08:54:28 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 10.0102 Re: Psalm 46
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0102 Re: Psalm 46

Thanks to Thomas Larque for his research into the KJV. However, and
whatever it may mean, it is only the KJV that has the 46th Psalm trick.
Maybe it means nothing, but it's unique.

More unique, possibly, is that this immense piece of work that lasted
for 6 years or more leaves us no clue as to the work being done, no
notes, no letters, no paper at all except for a few Hebrew quibbles by
Bois, not much helping our doubts that those men "appointed" were
actually engaged in the work.

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Peter Hillyar-Russ <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 21 Jan 1999 10:02:11 -0000
Subject:        RE: SHAKSPER Digest - 19 Jan 1999 to 20 Jan 1999

Carl Fortunato remarks:

>This addition of two extra words makes the count equal 46.  And
>according to "Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible" (Not really
>scholarly, but handy, and usually accurate), "in sunder" does not appear
>in the Hebrew.

It may not be particularly significant, but the information in Strong is
accurate but misleading. Hebrew verbal roots typically have three
consonants - in this case Q-Ts-Ts. The root meaning seems to be "to cut"
or "to break". The normal form would be "Qatsats", and would mean "He
brakes", or "He cuts". Here the form found in the Hebrew text is an
intensive (technically known as a Piel), formed by changing the internal
vowels and doubling the middle consonant: "Qits-tsets". This means "To
break in a more than normally usual way of breaking things". "To break
in pieces" is the definition in the (Old) standard Lexicon by Brown,
Driver and Briggs. The Geneva Bible was largely based on the Latin
Vulgata version, which does not express this intensive: "Arcum
confringet et concidet hastam" - and this the authorised (KJ) version
has corrected as a result of its closer attention to the Hebrew.

Great as my admiration for the bard may be, I find it hard to think that
he not only translated the psalm, and inserted his cryptographic
signature, but also corrected an oversight made by S. Jerome when he
translated the Hebrew into Latin, without dealing with the problem of
that uncounted final "Selah".

Peter Hillyar-Russ.
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.