caspianrex

To my knowledge, no reputable Shakespeare scholars really take the "authorship controversy" seriously. So that probably has little impact on the idea of Shakespeare's theoretical involvement with the KJV. The main thing, to my way of thinking, is that playwrights/poets were, in those days, considered to be distinctly lower-class citizens. The main reason women were not allowed to play women's parts in plays of the period is that it was considered a lewd, immoral act. Why, then, would anyone allow an actor/playwright like Shakespeare to participate in a task as sacred as translating God's

There is no proof whatsoever that Shakespeare worked on the KJV. And considering the low opinion many cultural elites had of actors and playwrights at the time, it's EXTREMELY unlikely that anyone on the translation committee would have wanted someone like Shakespeare to work with them. Sure, monarchs like Elizabeth and James found Shakespeare's work entertaining, and they may have had an appreciation for the quality of his poetry, but leaders in the English Church would not have found him remotely competent when it came to handling God's Word. It's only our modern perspective on Shakespeare a

@Dan McClellan I very much appreciated that you laid the appropriate groundwork in the Introduction of your paper, to remind the reader of the following: It seems to me, in the course of your paper, that you make a very compelling case for "after all we can do" in 2 Nephi 25:23 meaning "despite all we can do." Meanwhile, the passage from 2 Nephi seems to address, in its own way, the tension between Paul's emphasis on salvation by grace through faith and James's statement that "faith without works is dead." That tension has long troubled many followers of Christ, not the least of w

Glad to see I have access back again. I guess upgrades sometimes cause problems. Hopefully all the bugs will get worked out! Meanwhile, I guess I'll have to be more meticulous about my posts before I submit them, as it looks like editing is not possible ex post facto! (I think the mistake in the above meme is intentional...please read it with the intended irony.) UPDATE: Researching the "loss" of the Edit button in another thread, I found that you can edit your posts. When you click on the three little dots in the upper-right corner of your post, it gives you a menu which i

For some reason I can't access any posts in the Forums. No matter what topic I click on, I get the following error message... I've tried reloading the page, I've tried logging out and logging back in, and I've tried it in a couple different browsers, with no success. HELP!!! (Is anyone else having this problem?)

Just for fun, here's one more handy online gospel harmony: https://biblehub.com/parallelgospels/ This one is not in chart form. It's a list of events with hyperlinks to the parallel passages.

BTW, this appears to be the lecture by Terryl Givens that is cited in the original post: Terryl Givens - "Awful Woundedness"

As I should have guessed, Royal Skousen discusses the issue of this passage in his Analysis of Textual Variants. Here are screenshots of the relevant entry:

I think "state of awful blindness" is not intended to convey a degree of blindness, but rather to describe the effect of blindness. The blindness is considered "awful" because they are unable to see the truth. That being said, "woundedness" makes good textual sense to me. I'm curious as to why Skousen thinks "wickedness" is meant here. He is usually working towards the earliest text, which seems to be "woundedness" here. (The footnote in Grant Hardy's Maxwell Institute Study Edition indicates that the Original and the Printer's Manuscripts have "woundedness.")

Well, Mormon is pretty forthright at various places that he's editing the plates that contain the record of his people. So, if I had to guess, I would say that it's a conscious technique to link various passages together, to provide the reader with a "big picture" point of view. In other words, it seems to me that he interjects commentary that says something to the effect of, "This may seem like an isolated event, but keep reading, because there is a point that is coming up." I guess it's not completely unlike those "coming attractions" that come at the end of TV drama episodes. "Next week on

Even though he's not specifically talking about "spoilers," this quote from Grant Hardy's Understanding the Book of Mormon seems to relate to this topic: I agree, this is a fascinating facet of what Hardy would call an "editorial strategy."

Thanks all for the different opinions and clarifications on my question! Always interesting to learn more about a religious tradition that is different from my own.

This just showed up in my Twitter news feed, and as I am not a Latter-day Saint, I found it confusing. Perhaps someone can inform me, is Mr. Osmond representing the Book of Mormon accurately? His tweet was in response to one of his Twitter followers asking what the difference was between the Bible and the BoM. Surely, Lehi and his descendants would have considered themselves Jews, wouldn't they? I'm wondering if this is a fairly common position in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (Please don't take this as criticism of the Church in general. I am asking

One more cool picture of a Septuagint text...

Yes, it was in all CAPS (or technically, an uncial or majuscule script), and with no spaces. Here's a pic of what one of the older manuscripts looks like...

I managed to capture this screenshot from a YouTube clip, wherein The Swede is reading from 2 Nephi. Sorry the quality's not great...