The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.0131 Monday, 25 January 1999.
[1] From: Marion K Morford <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Saturday, 23 Jan 1999 10:55:29 +0000
Subj: More 46ing
[2] From: John Savage <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Saturday, 23 Jan 1999 11:29:57 -0500
Subj: SHK 10.0125 Re: Psalm 46
[3] From: John Savage <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Saturday, 23 Jan 1999 11:30:54 -0500
Subj: SHK 10.0125 Re: Psalm 46
[4] From: Eric W Beato <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Saturday, 23 Jan 1999 11:51:47 -0500
Subj: SHK 10.0125 Re: Psalm 46
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Marion K Morford <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Saturday, 23 Jan 1999 10:55:29 +0000
Subject: More 46ing
I just realized the ultimate '90s "proof" of the 46 debate - it MUST be
true because I AM 46 years old AND the letters from my name must be in
Psalm 46, plus I'm subscribing to SHAKESPER while at the very same time
reading through the Psalms!
I am also waiting by the phone for a call to be nominated for a certain
senate/juror role.
My only serious competition for my "proof" of course is the Shakes- pear
(tree) theory - a tough theory indeed to refute. Is there a Shakes-
apple tucked away in the literary or genoelogical landscape?
To change the subject, has anyone seen any reviews of the upcoming MND?
Morf
[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: John Savage <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Saturday, 23 Jan 1999 11:29:57 -0500
Subject: Re: Psalm 46
Comment: SHK 10.0125 Re: Psalm 46
Richard J. Kennedy wrote:
>The Friedman's were wrong. The KJV is the >only< translation that puts
>shake and speare in that 46th position.
Now I'm more confused than ever. Did the Great Bible of 1539 have the
words in the same position as the KJV-or not?
If it did, since it was created before Our Will was even born, then that
should put paid to the theory that his name is somehow embedded in Psalm
46.
If it didn't, then the possibility remains open.
[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: John Savage <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Saturday, 23 Jan 1999 11:30:54 -0500
Subject: Re: Psalm 46
Comment: SHK 10.0125 Re: Psalm 46
Mike Jensen wrote:
>John, you are acting irresponsibly
And not, I regret to say, for the first time.
>True, we do not have all the names, but we do have most.
Yes, as I mentioned, I was aware of that. We do not have all the names.
>100% of the names we have are of scholars who know the subject. There
>are NO poets amongst them. It would be a critical thinking error to claim
>we know no poet is on the team...
I had that same feeling.
>the idea of the establishment taking
>on such low life riff raff as theater workers, for so they were
>considered then, is laughable. We may think of Shakespeare as a great
>poet, but in that world, so what?
Surely you must be aware that Shakespeare's poetry was known, and much
admired, in university circles.
>And you are an expert on ciphers? I'm not, but as I said in a previous
>post, I spoke with someone who is, and this does not have the internal
>logic of ciphers. He thinks the suggestion is pretty funny.
Seems I'm like Falstaff-I'm not only funny myself but also the cause of
humour in others.
>It has been demonstrated that the position of those words was
>established in earlier translations.
Surely this is the key point. As I mentioned elsewhere, if "shake" and
"spear" were in exactly the same positions in some earlier version of
the Bible, then you win-hands down. But I hear conflicting claims.
Some say yes, some say no. (Personally, I find it difficult to believe
that the Friedmans could be wrong on such a subject.)
>I suppose you will now follow your usual habit and
>synthesize these statements into a new theory where Shakespeare worked
>closely with the translators to insure both accuracy and poetry?
I hadn't thought of it, but thank you for the helpful suggestion.
>Silly me. I'd like to think that people are smarter than that.
I suppose in most cases they are. In my case, however, that doesn't
seem to be true.
>Aside from the questionable cipher there is NO evidence that
>Shakespeare worked on the KJV.
I don't think anyone has suggested there is other evidence.
>I can't prove Shakespeare didn't work on the KJV and more than you can
>prove he did.
But obviously no one can offer "proof" in this matter. We are merely
considering possibilities, some stronger than others.
>Assuming the Dr. was right, no one will shake Mr. Savage from his belief
>that Shakespeare worked on several Psalms.
Sorry to correct you again. I have not stated this as my "belief"; I've
merely claimed that the positioning of these key words in Psalm 46 seems
more than mere coincidence, and that this leads to interesting
possibilities.
I find it also interesting that you refuse to even address the
possibility that, even if Shakespeare didn't work on the psalms, perhaps
one of the scholars may have, as a jest or prank or even as a sly
greeting to someone who may have been a friend, inserted his name into
the famous #46.
>So why am I putting my energy and nervous system into this? Willful
>ignorance always makes me testy.
I can but apologize for the extent of my ignorance-tho I've known it's
extensive I hadn't thought of it as willful-and I'm sorry it makes you
testy. You disagree with me about everything and I don't feel the least
bit testy.
However, most of the reasons that have been given to explain away the
extraordinary coincidences in Psalm 46 have had holes in them. Will S's
name wasn't on the list. (So what?) He didn't know Hebrew. (It's
quite possible he didn't have to.) And so on.
I submit (again) there's one test that would answer all this. If the
key words appeared in exactly the same positions in an earlier version
of the English Bible, a version written before the chap from Stratford
was even born, then, as far as I can see, that's the end of the argument
and I am prepared to leave the field, a gracious loser.
But did they?
[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Eric W Beato <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Saturday, 23 Jan 1999 11:51:47 -0500
Subject: Re: Psalm 46
Comment: SHK 10.0125 Re: Psalm 46
One of the reasons this list works is the general regulation against
wasting time with the "who wrote Shakespeare" topic. Those who wish to
engage in that topic miss the point of the plays almost entirely-and
this topic is coming to seem to me a replacement for the topic. And
making about as much sense. Enough, please, already!
Rick Beato
Lisle Senior High School, Lisle IL USA
