[Milton-L] For New Mass, Closer to Latin, Critics Voice a Plain Objection - NYTimes.com

Hannibal Hamlin hamlin.hannibal at gmail.com
Tue Apr 12 11:03:30 EDT 2011

Intriguing how these things work, the various shifts in language and
emphasis. Curious, for instance, that they're moving from the response "And
also with you" to "And with your spirit." The Anglican service moved in
exactly the opposite direction some years back (used to be "And with thy
spirit," now "And also with you"). Is "consubstantial" really more explicit
or just the (Latinate) theological term for "one in being"? OED has for
"consubstantiation" "the same in substance." I suppose one could wage
religious wars about the difference between "being" and "substance," but I'm
not sure congregations will see much difference. The arguments about style
on the second page are interesting too. I've been thinking about similar
matters in re. the King James Bible. As most of you likely know, there was a
huge ruckus when the New English Bible was introduced, and most of the
English political, ecclesiastical, literary, and cultural establishment
spoke up against the newbie in favor of the glories of the KJV. Similar row
about roughly contemporaneous shifts in the liturgy. What's so very hard is
to separate the allegiance people feel for language they know, that they've
lived with for years -- perhaps whole lives -- and features of the language
that are objectively demonstrable. Almost any innovation of Bible
translation or liturgy gets criticized, but how much of this is just
resistance to change? Our means of evaluating the strengths and weaknesses
of language in such texts is underdeveloped, I think. People praise the Book
of Common Prayer and the KJV extravagantly, and I'm fairly sympathetic, but
what makes for great liturgical language or a great Bible translation? Many
disagree about the underlying principles of dynamic versus formal
equivalence, or elevated versus colloquial levels of diction, but even
beyond these there are matters of rhythm, cadence, patterns of sound that
need further study. Milton would have been interested in such questions, I
think, since he adapts or simply imports biblical and even liturgical
language for various purposes in the poems.


On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 10:38 AM, Shoulson, Jeffrey <
jshoulson at mail.as.miami.edu> wrote:

> Of particular interest to Milton scholars in these revisions, perhaps, is
> the more explicit assertion in the new version of the Nicene Creed of the
> Son's consubstantiality with the Father:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/12/us/12mass.html?hp
> Jeffrey S. Shoulson, Ph. D.
> Associate Professor of English and Judaic Studies
> University of Miami
> PO Box 248145
> Coral Gables, FL 33124-4632
> (o) 305-284-5596
> (f) 305-284-5635
> ON LEAVE, AY 2010-11
> Katz Center for Advanced Judaic Studies
> University of Pennsylvania
> 420 Walnut Street
> Philadelphia, PA 19106
> (o) 215-2381290, ext. 413
> jshoulson at miami.edu<mailto:jshoulson at miami.edu>
> www.as.miami.edu/english/people/#jshoulson<
> http://www.as.miami.edu/english/people/#jshoulson>
> _______________________________________________
> Milton-L mailing list
> Milton-L at lists.richmond.edu
> Manage your list membership and access list archives at
> http://lists.richmond.edu/mailman/listinfo/milton-l
> Milton-L web site: http://johnmilton.org/

Hannibal Hamlin
Associate Professor of English
Editor, Reformation
Organizer, The King James Bible and its Cultural Afterlife
The Ohio State University
164 West 17th Ave., 421 Denney Hall
Columbus, OH 43210-1340
hamlin.22 at osu.edu/
hamlin.hannibal at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.richmond.edu/pipermail/milton-l/attachments/20110412/a95fa796/attachment.html

More information about the Milton-L mailing list