Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2003 :: August ::
Re: Psalm 46
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.1638  Tuesday, 19 August 2003

[1]     From:   Sam Small <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 18 Aug 2003 14:12:53 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1618 Re: Psalm 46

[2]     From:   Bob Grumman <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 18 Aug 2003 18:22:09 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1628 Re: Psalm 46

[3]     From:   Jim Carroll <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 18 Aug 2003 20:01:55 EDT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1618 Re: Psalm 46


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sam Small <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 18 Aug 2003 14:12:53 +0100
Subject: 14.1618 Re: Psalm 46
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1618 Re: Psalm 46

Double, double toil and trouble - conspiracies leap and conspiracies
bubble.  That two words are exactly 46 words from the start and end of a
piece of text is a fact.  What is not a fact is the assumption that it
is anything other than a coincidence.  But there again, to some immature
minds coincidence is the same thing as conspiracy.  Unless we have proof
from the writer and proof that he did what he said and proof that he did
what he did we will never know.  As the emergence of this proof is
highly unlikely it must remain a coincidence.  Dave Kathman and others
will never prove that Shakespeare was Shakespeare or the man in the
moon.  If he had proof then there would be no argument.  There is no
argument about Churchill being the British Prime Minister in the Second
World War because there is proof that he was so.  Therefore there is no
argument about who was the Prime Minister in World War II.  My own name
contains 8 letters 4 of which are repeated 2 times making 4 pairs.  Does
this mean something?  Is this a barmy Harry Potter wizard trying to tell
me something?

Without proof all we can do is sit and wait for it.  But don't hold your
breath.

SAM SMALL

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Bob Grumman <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 18 Aug 2003 18:22:09 -0400
Subject: 14.1628 Re: Psalm 46
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1628 Re: Psalm 46

Bill Arnold disagrees with my claim that Shakespeare, in translating
Psalm 46, would not have had the 'Selah' messing his little trick up.

Bill Arnold says the Selah is not part of the text.  What is it in the
middle of Psalm 20?

And even if it's not supposed to count, it LOOKS like it's part of the
text, so why would a number-gamester leave it in?

Now, then, what's this "collateral evidence in support of the 46/46"
game that you have, Bill?  And how do you dispose of all the evidence
against Shakespeare's participation in the translation of the Bible?

--Bob G.

>Well, well, well.  All of this supposed that the word "Selah" was part
>of the TEXT of Psalm 46, which it isn't.  As I pointed out in my book in
>my analysis of the texts from the ancient Hebrew, and Latin, up to the
>English translations, the translators were ordered by King James I to
>use the TEXT and remove all offending [to him!] marginalia, et al.,
>which challenged his Divine Right to the English Throne!  Thus, the
>Prologue to Psalm 46 from the offending text was removed but the Coda
>"Selah" was not.  So be it.  But, as cryptologists have pointed out,
>including myself, the TEXT is what matters and the TEXT of Psalm 46/46,
>front-to-back IS "Shake.../...Spear' and none can deny that fact.  Count
>it, in the KJV, if you doubt it!  And contrary to all quibbling aside,
>as I also pointed out in my book, NONE of the other TEXTS are EXACTLY
>46/46.  So there!  Now, none of this would be other than numerical
>nonsense, even as the Friendmans admit, as I also note in my book,
>unless there were not other collateral evidence in support of the 46/46
>being somehow significant in the LIFE and BIO of Will S, of which it
>IS.  So there, again!!
>
>Bill Arnold
>http://www.cwru.edu/affil/edis/scholars/arnold.htm

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Jim Carroll <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 18 Aug 2003 20:01:55 EDT
Subject: 14.1618 Re: Psalm 46
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1618 Re: Psalm 46

FYI, there is a short paper on this topic in the March 2003 Notes and
Queries (vol 248 pp 58-60) by R. H. Robbins, titled "Shakespeare and
Psalm 46: An Accumulation of Coincidences." He notes the evolution of
the positions of the word "shake" and "speare"  in the psalm in the
various editions of the Bible up through the KJV. He gives

Coverdale ('shoke', 1535, 1537, 1550): 56/47
Great (1539-41):                                46/48
Geneva (1560):                                  47/44
Bishops' (1568-69):                            47/48
Bishops' (1573, 1602):                       46/48

As a cure for the numerologically inclined, I can suggest Martin
Gardner's essays in such books as "Science: Good, Bad and Bogus" and
"The Numerology of Dr. Matrix."

Jim Carroll

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, 
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.