Notifications
Clear all

The Good Book


William Thirteen
(@williamthirteen)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 1091
Topic starter  

hello dear friends,

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

did a search before this post but came up empty handed so i thought i'd ask the esteemed brethren. Anyone know which version of the Bible the Old Goat grew up with?  Did the Plymouth Brethren have their own special version or did they use whatever was lying about? (see what i did there?)

Love is the law, love under will.

warm regards,
William


Quote
Markus
(@markus)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 259
 

I'm fairly certain it was the KJV. Can't remember where I read that, but it must've been Kazcynski or Churton. Certainly, Old Crow's English reflects this influence.

Markus


ReplyQuote
William Thirteen
(@williamthirteen)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 1091
Topic starter  

thanks Markus - I'll check them when I get a chance and report back. Or if anyone has an electronic version which they can more easily search, that'd be a 'blessing'.


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1092
 

It was the King James Version, aka Authorized Version. Crowley writes in the Confessions, describing the beliefs of the Plymouth Brethren -

"The Bible, authorized version, was literally true, having been dictated by the Holy Ghost himself to scribes incapable of even clerical errors. King James' translators enjoyed an equal immunity. It was considered unusual— and therefore in doubtful taste—to appeal to the original texts. All other versions were regarded as inferior; the Revised Version in particular savoured of heresy. John Nelson Darby, the founder of the Plymouth Brethren, being a very famous biblical scholar, had been invited to sit on the committee and had refused on the ground that some of the other scholars were atheists."

(Chapter 1 (Symonds and Grant (Hill and Wang, 1969) ed., page 38)


ReplyQuote
William Thirteen
(@williamthirteen)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 1091
Topic starter  

thanks for the quick work belmurru. I knew I had seen a reference somewhere.  The KJV is quite a resilient beast!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized_King_James_Version


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1092
 
"WilliamThirteen" wrote:
thanks for the quick work belmurru. I knew I had seen a reference somewhere.  The KJV is quite a resilient beast!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized_King_James_Version

It is, and very beautiful language as well.

By the way, I think that "authorized version" in that quote should be capitalized - Authorized Version. Symonds and Grant don't do it, but could anyone with the first, Mandrake Press, edition of the first two volumes of the Confessions tell me if it is capitalized there? If Crowley had seen the proofs and approved them himself, I would guess that he would have capitalized this alternate title for the KJV.


ReplyQuote
chuck
(@chuck)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 52
 

By the way, I think that "authorized version" in that quote should be capitalized - Authorized Version. Symonds and Grant don't do it, but could anyone with the first, Mandrake Press, edition of the first two volumes of the Confessions tell me if it is capitalized there? If Crowley had seen the proofs and approved them himself, I would guess that he would have capitalized this alternate title for the KJV.

93
It is not:

"The Bible, authorised version, was literally true, having been dictated by the Holy Ghost himself to scribes incapable of even clerical errors."

Confessions, Vol 1, pages 12 - 13

93 93/93
Chuck


ReplyQuote
William Thirteen
(@williamthirteen)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 1091
Topic starter  

guess AC's scribes weren't quite as competent as those of the Holy Ghost!


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1092
 
"chuck" wrote:
93
It is not:

"The Bible, authorised version, was literally true, having been dictated by the Holy Ghost himself to scribes incapable of even clerical errors."

Confessions, Vol 1, pages 12 - 13

93 93/93
Chuck

Thanks very much Chuck!


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1092
 
"WilliamThirteen" wrote:
guess AC's scribes weren't quite as competent as those of the Holy Ghost!

Yes, it appears so. The abbreviations for the King James Version are AV (Authorized Version) and KJV (obviously - usually followed by "1611" in evangelical circles, although the 1611 printing itself had many typographical errors that were later corrected). Unless "Authorized Version" wasn't as common then as it is today, I think it must be a case of the transcriber/typesetter not being familiar with the conventions.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 4146
 
"belmurru" wrote:
Unless "Authorized Version" wasn't as common then as it is today, I think it must be a case of the transcriber/typesetter not being familiar with the conventions.

Given that Crowley would likely have seen proofs, it's perhaps more likely that he didn't regard it as of much importance.


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1092
 
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
Given that Crowley would likely have seen proofs, it's perhaps more likely that he didn't regard it as of much importance.

Yep, that's possible too. I've scanned a few other places, like the Preface to The World's Tragedy, but I didn't find the term there.

Just a bit of trivia, that's all. It annoyed me, so I wondered if Crowley were such a stickler as well.


ReplyQuote
SatansAdvocaat
(@satansadvocaat)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 351
 

There was a Revised Version of the KJV published in the late 19th century between 1881-1894, and according to the Wikipedia entry this was "the only officially authorized and recognised version of the KJV".

But there is little doubt that AC was brought up on the original 1611 KJV and continued to refer to that.  The translation actually leaves a lot to be desired, particularly the Hebrew of the OT.  Not sure how familiar AC was with that, but he certainly had familiarity with the Greek text of the NT, but which Greek text that might have been I knoweth not.


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1092
 
"Satan'sAdvocaat" wrote:
There was a Revised Version of the KJV published in the late 19th century between 1881-1894, and according to the Wikipedia entry this was "the only officially authorized and recognised version of the KJV".

But there is little doubt that AC was brought up on the original 1611 KJV and continued to refer to that.  The translation actually leaves a lot to be desired, particularly the Hebrew of the OT.  Not sure how familiar AC was with that, but he certainly had familiarity with the Greek text of the NT, but which Greek text that might have been I knoweth not.

There is no room for even a little doubt, since Crowley mentions the Revised Version specifically. According to him, to the Plymouth Brethren the Revised Version "savoured of heresy". This is from the quote a few posts back from the Confessions (important part in bold) -

"The Bible, authorized version, was literally true, having been dictated by the Holy Ghost himself to scribes incapable of even clerical errors. King James' translators enjoyed an equal immunity. It was considered unusual— and therefore in doubtful taste—to appeal to the original texts. All other versions were regarded as inferior; the Revised Version in particular savoured of heresy. John Nelson Darby, the founder of the Plymouth Brethren, being a very famous biblical scholar, had been invited to sit on the committee and had refused on the ground that some of the other scholars were atheists."

(Chapter 1 (Symonds and Grant (Hill and Wang, 1969) ed., page 38)


ReplyQuote
SatansAdvocaat
(@satansadvocaat)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 351
 

Completely agree, belmurru, checked 'The Confessions' last night and that full quotation from Chapter 1 says it all, I was going to copy it in myself, with a further reference to round things off:

"The result was immediately apparent. A girl of the village, three miles away, asked me to employ her as my secretary. I had had no intention of doing any literary work; but as soon as I set eyes on her I recognized that she had been sent for a purpose, for she exactly resembled the aforesaid toad. I therefore engaged her to come out every morning an take dictation. I had with me a copy of Bernard Shaw's Androcles and the Lion and bethought myself that I would criticize the preface. THE ALMOST UNPARALLELED KNOWLEDGE OF THE TEXT OF THE BIBLE WHICH I HAD ACQUIRED IN EARLY CHILDHOOD was shocked by Shaw's outrageously arbitrary selection of the texts that sustained his argument. His ignorance of Asiatic life and thought had led him into the most grotesque misapprehensions. I set out to criticize his essay, section by section; but the work grew under my hand, and in three weeks or so, I had produced a formidable treatise of some forty-five thousand words."

Chapter 82, page 888 - suitably enough - in my old Bantam pb.


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1092
 

Isn't there also a letter to his son where he mentions the KJV - books of Job, Psalms and Proverbs especially - along with Shakespeare's Sonnets, as the best way to pick up style in English? I can't find the reference right now. There was a thread a few months back where someone claimed the letter in all publishled versions omitted an apparently offensive line, as well. But the plaintiff never provided any evidence, as far as I know.

I any case, I agree with the Old Man. The KJV is a monument of English diction, and that advice is still very valuable. Unfortunately, I find very few writers outside of the UK - and few enough within it - who write with any kind of sensitivity to cadence and rhythm - or often even sense! - in their sentences.

Strangely, the KJV's Old Testament produced what some commentators consider "Hebraic English" - but such was the Bible's effect on the tongue, at just the time that English was globally expanding, that the entire language picked up some of their hebraisms and archaisms. 


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 5972
 
"Satan'sAdvocaat" wrote:
"... I recognized that she had been sent for a purpose, for she exactly resembled the aforesaid toad."

I have always thought that this statement was one of AC's most hilarious sentences.


ReplyQuote
SatansAdvocaat
(@satansadvocaat)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 351
 

Not sure about that letter, belmurru, nor can I say that I am able to agree with you or the Old Man about the best way of picking up style in English - late 16th - early 17th century English, perhaps.  I'm one Englishman who is not obligatorily (?) besotted by the prose and poetry of Shakespeare; and the KJV rendition of some Hebrew texts of the O.T. is positively grotesque.  Proverbs is one of the most depressing books that I have ever bothered to read.  But the 'Song of Solomon' or Canticles, so-called, is rather beautiful and well worth esoteric attention.

Yes, Shiva, that statement is prime Crowley.  With reference to the complications that may ensue from having dealings with women who resemble toads, have you ever read Clark Ashton Smith's short story "The Mother of Toads" - its a little beauty and can be found at:
http://www.donaldcorrell.com/cas/68.html  - which is the censored version as published in the pulps; the unexpurgated text was published as a chapbook by Necronomicon Press in 1988, but I never acquired a copy.  Ah yes, CAS, now there's an American, English stylist for you.


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1092
 

R.T. Cole has reminded me that Kaczynski reproduces Crowley's letter to Ataturk on pp. 544-545 of the second edition of Perdurabo. I was wrong about his mentioning the KJV/AV, or the Sonnets of Shakespeare, when referring to style, which is in the penultimate paragraph:

"There is one more point that I want to impress to you. The best models of English writings are Shakespeare and the Old Testament, especially the Book of Job, the Psalms and Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon. It will be a very good thing for you to commit as much as you can both of these books and of the best plays of Shakespeare to memory, so that they form the foundation of your style. In writing English, the most important quality that you can acquire is style."

I should have qualified my statement, Satan'sAdvocaat, about the lack of good style in most of what I read in English, by restricting it to prose non-fiction. Clearly there are many great stylists of modern English fiction. It's just that I happen not to read much fiction, and most of what I read in non-fiction, whether historians, scientists, or journalists, is stylistically deplorable. I think this is largely due to a paucity of models for essayists. I wish more writers would read someone like the late Christopher Hitchens, who was a superb stylist. I think the "golden age" of modern English style, on both sides of the Atlantic, was between 1890 and 1990.

PS - I should also mention that one of best stylists on LAShTAL is Los; I love to read him.


ReplyQuote
Share: