Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2000 :: February ::
Psalm 46
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0325  Wednesday, 16 February 2000.

[1]     From:   Mike Jensen <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 15 Feb 2000 11:43:11 -0800
        Subj:   SHK 11.0306 Re: Money

[2]     From:   Jay Johnson <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 15 Feb 2000 18:25:24 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0317 Re: Money (KJV)

[3]     From:   John Briggs <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wed, 16 Feb 2000 08:59:35 -0000
        Subj:   RE: SHK 11.0314 King James Bible


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mike Jensen <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 15 Feb 2000 11:43:11 -0800
Subject: Re: Money
Comment:        SHK 11.0306 Re: Money

My neighbor Alexander Houck writes:

>I can't remember the exact story of how there is "proof"
>that Shakespeare contributed to the King James Bible.

Regarding ur-Hamlet, David Bishop writes:

>This personal interest, even obsession, may be connected with
>the fact that he named his son Hamnet.

I write, Here we go again!  Anyone want to make a pre-emptive strike and
nip these in the bud?

Sigh,
Mike Jensen

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Jay Johnson <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 15 Feb 2000 18:25:24 -0700
Subject: 11.0317 Re: Money (KJV)
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0317 Re: Money (KJV)

For an interesting fictional account of how Shakespeare and Ben Jonson
might have collaborated to improve the KJV, read the short story "Proofs
of Holy Writ" by Rudyard Kipling.

Jay Johnson

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Briggs <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wed, 16 Feb 2000 08:59:35 -0000
Subject: 11.0314 King James Bible
Comment:        RE: SHK 11.0314 King James Bible

Kate Breen wrote:

"I don't know if this constitutes "proof," but it's interesting."

Well, I said "amusing", and Sean Lawrence said "hogwash"!

I realise that Hardy is keen to close down this thread before it bores
everyone rigid, but I would just refer people to the "Book of Common
Prayer".  Most proponents of this "proof" fail to realise that the
Anglican Church has two versions of the Psalms.  The BCP has the version
of an earlier translation (Coverdale's?), and Psalm 46 has both "shake"
and "spear" at the same points, but neither is at position 46 because of
wording differences.  This makes it unlikely that the words were
"planted" by the revisers of the KJ translation.  Even in those days the
work of translation and revision was done by committees of theologians,
biblical scholars and translators (usually the same people...) rather
than by poets and playwrights.  It has been said that the English
language was then so strong it could be written by a committee...

John Briggs
 

Other Messages In This Thread

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.