|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: What makes this rage and spite?
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
...asks Richard Crossman in one stanza of the famous hymn "Love Unknown" (please move this thread if it turns out to be in the wrong place).
I don't think I'll be sued if I quote the whole verse:
Why, what hath my Lord done?
What makes this rage and spite?
He made the lame to run,
He gave the blind their sight.
Sweet injuries! Yet they from these
Themselves displease, and 'gainst him rise.
Why is this verse so often left out, either in the actual hymnal, or as a starred verse the congregation is advised to leave out?
The hymn was written in 1664, shortly after the Restoration of Charles II. Could this be significant? What was Crossman's churchmanship?
Is "sweet injuries" the problem? It's not immediately obvious that he means not blindness and lameness, but the injuries Jesus is accused of (healing on the sabbath etc) and is both ironic and (if I've got the term right) - oxymoronic, a device belove of Milton and the Metaphysican Poets.
It's one of my favourite hymns, and I hate to see it mucked around with.
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
Because along with healing the sick, Christ also convicted people of their sins, challenged their pride and self-righteousness, afflicted the comfortable, and, worst of all, was not prepared to rise up against the occupying power. He even gave tax collectors a break.
So there were plenty of reasons for people to hate Him (and I suppose some hymn compilers don't want to be reminded of the more challenging aspects of Christ's ministry).
[ 05. September 2013, 16:13: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
Crossman was a Puritan from Suffolk who eventually signed the Act of Uniformity and ended his days as Dean of Bristol.
It's a lovely hymn. I think where it gives offence is in the theologically dubious (but spiritually tempting) notion that those nasty people somewhere else were responsible for Our Lord's suffering and death, and that if I had been around I would certainly have loved him, stayed awake to pray with him, and been true to him to the end. God forbid that I should crucify him.
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo
The whole hymn is so anti-Semitic that the whole of it should be left out.
Explain please.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
Why is this verse so often left out, either in the actual hymnal, or as a starred verse the congregation is advised to leave out?
FWIW I think I've always sung it with that verse left in.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ultracrepidarian
Shipmate
# 9679
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The whole hymn is so anti-Semitic that the whole of it should be left out.
I can see it could be read that way, but I've always thought of the verses as highlighting to the fecklessness of humans leading to the betrayal and condemnation of Jesus, not about Jews in particular. I don't feel there's any suggestion in the hymn that there should be some sort of blood guilt that deserves punishment or ill-treatment of Jews today.
I actually find the hymn very moving because, following the narrative of Holy Week, I always see myself in the place of 'Them', singing 'Hosanna' and then 'Crucify'. I am one of the loveless to whom God's love is shown.
All in all, I don't really see it as being any more anti-Semitic than the gospels.
Posts: 1897 | From: Cattle crossing | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The whole hymn is so anti-Semitic that the whole of it should be left out.
No it isn't and no it shouldn't
[ 05. September 2013, 18:49: Message edited by: Spike ]
--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing
Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The whole hymn is so anti-Semitic that the whole of it should be left out.
In what way exactly is it anti-Semitic ? Lyrics.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ultracrepidarian:
I actually find the hymn very moving because, following the narrative of Holy Week, I always see myself in the place of 'Them', singing 'Hosanna' and then 'Crucify'. I am one of the loveless to whom God's love is shown.
Doesn't that somewhat bastardize the lyrics? (Thanks, Doublethink!) The song contains three sets of personal pronouns. Instances of first person singular ("my", "I") refer to the singer (obviously), the third person singular ("He", "His", "Him") refer to Jesus (again somewhat obviously, at least in the written version which capitalizes these pronouns), and the third person plural ("they", "their", "themselves") are an external group that hates Jesus because He's so wonderful and conspires to kill Him. Conflating "I" and "they" seems counter to authorial intent.
[ 05. September 2013, 21:03: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
Conflating "I" and "they" seems counter to authorial intent.
It may very well do so, but so what? That is not necessarily the purpose of art, is it? Good art always allows the hearer / viewer to make it his own in some way.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Ultracrepidarian:
I actually find the hymn very moving because, following the narrative of Holy Week, I always see myself in the place of 'Them', singing 'Hosanna' and then 'Crucify'. I am one of the loveless to whom God's love is shown.
Doesn't that somewhat bastardize the lyrics? (Thanks, Doublethink!) The song contains three sets of personal pronouns. Instances of first person singular ("my", "I") refer to the singer (obviously), the third person singular ("He", "His", "Him") refer to Jesus (again somewhat obviously, at least in the written version which capitalizes these pronouns), and the third person plural ("they", "their", "themselves") are an external group that hates Jesus because He's so wonderful and conspires to kill Him. Conflating "I" and "they" seems counter to authorial intent.
Is this you taking on the serried ranks of post-structuralists, Croesos? Good luck - I might join you.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
Conflating "I" and "they" seems counter to authorial intent.
It may very well do so, but so what? That is not necessarily the purpose of art, is it? Good art always allows the hearer / viewer to make it his own in some way.
In some way, but that's not an infinitely movable boundary. You can't have a serious discussion with someone about Melville's symbolic use of cyborg ninjas in Moby Dick because that's not "mak[ing] it [your] own in some way", that's inventing something else entirely that cannot really be attributed to Melville. Similarly, changing a "they" to a "we" in a work that already delineates a separate "I" isn't interpreting Crossman's "Love Unknown", it's inventing a whole new "Love Unknown" that the listener feels Crossman should have written but didn't.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Conflating "I" and "they" seems counter to authorial intent.
I'm not so sure. The first two lines seem to break the boundary.
"... love to me, love to the loveless shown that they may lovely be"
If the loveless is a reference to 'me', then the author is starting to attribute the characteristics displayed of 'them' to 'myself'.
If the loveless is purely a reference to 'them', then it is also clear that 'my saviour' loves them and more to the point makes 'them' lovely. Which doesn't sit well with a pure blood libel.
[edit- and further in the second verse 'Men' & 'None', given Samuel wasn't a lady (in which case there would be a possibility of a man-libel interpretation) is continuing to blur the boundaries]
Without those lines, the default assumption's clear. With them I'd call for further research.
[ 05. September 2013, 22:26: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Calmdown! Its a wonderful song. Sing it and mean it.
Its also clearly a reference to the killing of king Charles (that man of blood) which causes me problems sometimes. But so what? Bring it out on Good Friday and sing it about Jesus.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Because along with healing the sick, Christ also convicted people of their sins, challenged their pride and self-righteousness, afflicted the comfortable, and, worst of all, was not prepared to rise up against the occupying power. He even gave tax collectors a break.
So there were plenty of reasons for people to hate Him (and I suppose some hymn compilers don't want to be reminded of the more challenging aspects of Christ's ministry).
I don't think you're understanding the meaning of the verse. It's not saying "Q: Why is he hated, A: Because he did these things". It's saying "Why is he hated, when he did all these incredibly good things?"
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
As to the original question, the only reason I've ever seen for some verses being made optional is simply for the sake of time, and deciding which verses can be dropped without losing the overall narrative.
Sometimes hymnbook editors do this for you by omitting verses. Sometimes they suggest which ones can be most readily dropped by marking with an asterisk or similar.
I don't think it's because someone has a problem with the contents of the verse.
Frankly, if I had my way I'd happily sing as many verses as I could find from different versions in different hymn books. It's my favourite hymn of all, mostly because John Ireland's melody is one of the most brilliantly musical, well-shaped tunes one could ever hope to find. But practical reality means that you can't always turn every hymn into a multi-versed epic. And so editing decisions are made.
[ 06. September 2013, 01:51: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
bib
Shipmate
# 13074
|
Posted
I have never know that verse to be omitted and am quite surprised to hear that it often is. It isn't my favourite hymn although there are many at church who insist it belongs in our Easter services.
--------------------
"My Lord, my Life, my Way, my End, accept the praise I bring"
Posts: 1307 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Hymn choices are liturgical choices, so this thread is off to Ecclesiantics.
RuthW
Temp Purg Host
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Calmdown! Its a wonderful song. Sing it and mean it.
Its also clearly a reference to the killing of king Charles (that man of blood) which causes me problems sometimes. But so what? Bring it out on Good Friday and sing it about Jesus.
I assumed for years that Crossman was one of the Royalist clergy put out of their benefices during the Commonwealth. It surprised me greatly to discover that he was a supporter of Parliament, a Puritan, and did very well for himself, even after the Restoration.
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
He also did not sign the act of Uniformity in 1662. He did so later, but not then.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
Yes--he'd never have ended up as Dean of Bristol Cathedral if he hadn't!
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Ultracrepidarian:
I actually find the hymn very moving because, following the narrative of Holy Week, I always see myself in the place of 'Them', singing 'Hosanna' and then 'Crucify'. I am one of the loveless to whom God's love is shown.
Doesn't that somewhat bastardize the lyrics? (Thanks, Doublethink!) The song contains three sets of personal pronouns. Instances of first person singular ("my", "I") refer to the singer (obviously), the third person singular ("He", "His", "Him") refer to Jesus (again somewhat obviously, at least in the written version which capitalizes these pronouns), and the third person plural ("they", "their", "themselves") are an external group that hates Jesus because He's so wonderful and conspires to kill Him. Conflating "I" and "they" seems counter to authorial intent.
That isn't how poetry works. Authorial intent (which is next to useless anyway - what on earth do they know, how do we know, &c.) might very well have written these words seeking to provoke exactly KLB's reaction (which is exactly the appropriate one). Indeed, the deliberate use of "they" might indeed make it more painfully obvious that it should be "we", especially to a seventeenth century mind. The identification of "us" as "not them" is thus painful, because we know we are guilty of Our Lord's blood: it's like being given a prize for something we didn't do.
The NEH stars verse six as well, so I think it's just a length issue (as the actress said... &c), given that seven verses are printed there
--------------------
I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
Posts: 307 | From: North London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
That wasn't me, avatar notwithstanding!
So it wasn't. Oops. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
--------------------
I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
Posts: 307 | From: North London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
That isn't how poetry works. Authorial intent (which is next to useless anyway - what on earth do they know, how do we know, &c.) might very well have written these words seeking to provoke exactly KLB's reaction (which is exactly the appropriate one). Indeed, the deliberate use of "they" might indeed make it more painfully obvious that it should be "we", especially to a seventeenth century mind.
You know what would be an even more painfully obvious way to indicate "we" instead of "they"? Using "we". First person plural pronouns existed in the seventeenth century.
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
The identification of "us" as "not them" is thus painful, because we know we are guilty of Our Lord's blood: it's like being given a prize for something we didn't do.
I think you're projecting your preferred interpretation on a text that doesn't support it.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Ultracrepidarian:
I actually find the hymn very moving because, following the narrative of Holy Week, I always see myself in the place of 'Them', singing 'Hosanna' and then 'Crucify'. I am one of the loveless to whom God's love is shown.
Doesn't that somewhat bastardize the lyrics? (Thanks, Doublethink!) The song contains three sets of personal pronouns. Instances of first person singular ("my", "I") refer to the singer (obviously), the third person singular ("He", "His", "Him") refer to Jesus (again somewhat obviously, at least in the written version which capitalizes these pronouns), and the third person plural ("they", "their", "themselves") are an external group that hates Jesus because He's so wonderful and conspires to kill Him. Conflating "I" and "they" seems counter to authorial intent.
That isn't how poetry works. Authorial intent (which is next to useless anyway - what on earth do they know, how do we know, &c.) might very well have written these words seeking to provoke exactly KLB's reaction (which is exactly the appropriate one). Indeed, the deliberate use of "they" might indeed make it more painfully obvious that it should be "we", especially to a seventeenth century mind. The identification of "us" as "not them" is thus painful, because we know we are guilty of Our Lord's blood: it's like being given a prize for something we didn't do.
Vade mecum--a poet of the 17th century wouldn't play fast and loose with his (or her) pronouns. 'I' meant 'I'. 'We' meant 'we'. 'They' meant 'those others,' and so forth. If you think otherwise, you should give either another instance or a sentence on the matter from one of the contemporaneous manuals of rhetoric.
I agree with you though that the omission or starring of verses in the hymnal is almost certainly a matter of cropping the length.
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The whole hymn is so anti-Semitic that the whole of it should be left out.
In what way exactly is it anti-Semitic ? Lyrics.
But men made strange, and none
The longed-for Christ would know:
assumes that the Jews rejected their messiah when he patently did not fulfil messianic expectations
Sometimes they strew His way,
And His sweet praises sing;....
Then “Crucify!” is all their breath,
suggests Jews are turncoats whereas, in fact, the crowd on Palm Sunday would have been locals.
The crowd at pesach/passover would have been from all over the country, pilgrims for the festival and likely to have never seen Jesus before
[ 06. September 2013, 15:02: Message edited by: leo ]
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
I now recognize that Jerusalem wasn't a small village, but a substantial city of perhaps 30,000 or people residents. During the Jewish holidays, such as Passover, the population would swell to as much as ten times this amount. This means that a tiny percentage of the Jews in Jerusalem were directly involved with or actually called for the crucifixion of Jesus. His death was surely engineered by the Jewish leaders in collusion with Pilate and his Roman cohort. As far as we know, the vast majority of Jews in Jerusalem were either horrified by or unaware of what was going on with Jesus.....Matthew and Luke refer less to the crowd and Luke does not mention any “crowd” or “crowds,” but speaks instead of “the whole multitude of the disciples.” That is a rather ambiguous expression that could refer to the Jerusalem crowd as disciples, but could also be simply a way of referring to those who came from Galilee with Jesus.
By John, that original emphasis on Jewish supporting crowd versus Jewish high-priestly authority diminishes significantly.
Josephus has the same distinction between the pro-Jesus Jewish crowd and the anti-Jesus Jewish authorities
The Last Week – M. Borg and J. Crossan (SPCK 2008 London p. 90
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The whole hymn is so anti-Semitic that the whole of it should be left out.
In what way exactly is it anti-Semitic ? Lyrics.
But men made strange, and none
The longed-for Christ would know:
assumes that the Jews rejected their messiah when he patently did not fulfil messianic expectations
Sometimes they strew His way,
And His sweet praises sing;....
Then “Crucify!” is all their breath,
suggests Jews are turncoats whereas, in fact, the crowd on Palm Sunday would have been locals.
The crowd at pesach/passover would have been from all over the country, pilgrims for the festival and likely to have never seen Jesus before
I don't see that as a reference to the Jews, I see it as a reference to humanity. The Jews made strange, with the same scansion if he had wanted to.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
And "who am I?" The hymn is very cleverly crafted. And almost monosyllabic. I don't think that "who am I" is necessarily a piece of pious rhetoric. I have, almost from the first time I heard it, read it as a deliberate riddle.
Who is the "I" of the poem? There are one or two clues. "Love Unknown", the title of the piece, is one of them. It's usually read asa reference to the "unknown god". But suppose it refers also to the the one who is loved, and loves back - but in secret? You get my drift?
Someone that hardline Christians might denigrate for his reluctance to "come out" (I'm not referring to his sexuality)?
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
Vade mecum--a poet of the 17th century wouldn't play fast and loose with his (or her) pronouns. 'I' meant 'I'. 'We' meant 'we'. 'They' meant 'those others,' and so forth. If you think otherwise, you should give either another instance or a sentence on the matter from one of the contemporaneous manuals of rhetoric.
...
I know it's not quite the same (no linguist), but "Ask not for whom the bell tolls" has elements of a switch. In fact looking at context it seems even stronger.
Actually on the surface the (linguists'?) Charles 1 opinion makes a lot of sense, with what we know of the author of the time-and therefore intent, in which case renouncing (in which case having the we/they switch) or denying (in which case not) a different 'them'.
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The whole hymn is so anti-Semitic that the whole of it should be left out.
In what way exactly is it anti-Semitic ? Lyrics.
But men made strange, and none
The longed-for Christ would know:
assumes that the Jews rejected their messiah when he patently did not fulfil messianic expectations
Sometimes they strew His way,
And His sweet praises sing;....
Then “Crucify!” is all their breath,
suggests Jews are turncoats whereas, in fact, the crowd on Palm Sunday would have been locals.
The crowd at pesach/passover would have been from all over the country, pilgrims for the festival and likely to have never seen Jesus before
Leo, with all due respect, I think you are tilting at windmills here. The first quote especially. As I said, this is my favourite hymn and not once have I ever read those references as trying to target Jews specifically.
Your logic, taken to its endpoint, would take every Gospel reference to a physical location in Jewish lands as being anti Semitic if anything remotely bad happened there. And bad things have to happen SOMEWHERE. They can't occur in an abstract space. The events of the Gospels happen in a location where the population is predominantly Jewish. Not especially surprising when the main character is Jewish.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I like Doublethink's answer to that, myself.
That isn't how everyone takes it - even if they are meant to.
The British Journal of RE did a research article some time back (not online - a long time ago) about children singing hymns in assembly and adults who took things literally - it suggested we need to keep a tight control of what is sung and how it can be distorted.
Holy Week is a particularly bad example - most of the anti-Jewish pogroms took place after palm Sunday and Good Friday liturgies.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I don't see that as a reference to the Jews, I see it as a reference to humanity. The Jews made strange, with the same scansion if he had wanted to.
That doesn't track with the rest of the lyrics, unless we're to believe that the singer somehow stands outside of humanity. While not necessarily representing the Jews, the song is clearly referring to a group to which the singer does not belong, and who engineered (or at least advocated) the death of Jesus.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I don't see that as a reference to the Jews, I see it as a reference to humanity. The Jews made strange, with the same scansion if he had wanted to.
That doesn't track with the rest of the lyrics, unless we're to believe that the singer somehow stands outside of humanity. While not necessarily representing the Jews, the song is clearly referring to a group to which the singer does not belong, and who engineered (or at least advocated) the death of Jesus.
But in that bit, the word used is 'man', which depending on use includes at least half of humanity and definitely includes the author.
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
I also wonder why this hymn is so popular.
Is it the tune? It is certainly a fine tune but it can still be sung - to 'Glory be to tee O God/For all thy saints in light...
Is it the 'me/my' aspect - critics of modern worship songs? - 'Good hymns focus on God; bad hymns focus on the self.'
Is it “So long as the hymn made me feel good, what else matters?”
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
Re the oft-ommitted verse mentioned in the OP, there's a suggestion, by some Lutherans, that there's a hint of anti-semitism - that those who were healed by Jesus (all Jewish apart from the Centurion's servant and the Syro-Phonecian woman), have risen up against him.
quote:
In the Evangelical Lutheran Worship (2006), only six of the original seven verses written by Crossman are published. The fourth verse is omitted because of the potential for the text to be inferred as suggesting that those in particular who had been healed are the ones who will rise against Christ. The hymn stays true to the original text with only a few minor changes, including the spelling of “strew,” instead of “strow.” There are, however, two major modifications that have been made. First, in Evangelical Lutheran Worship, the text is changed from “They,” to “We,” altogether who strew his way and have our dear Lord made away. Second, Crossman wrote
But men made strange, and none
The longed-for Christ would know.
But was changed to
The world that was his own
Would not its savior know.
Though it is clear that the paradox mentioned earlier is maintained with the change in text, it is a different way of saying estranged. By omitting “strange,” we lose the sense of Christ being estranged, or alienated, from the world.
source
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I don't see that as a reference to the Jews, I see it as a reference to humanity. The Jews made strange, with the same scansion if he had wanted to.
That doesn't track with the rest of the lyrics, unless we're to believe that the singer somehow stands outside of humanity. While not necessarily representing the Jews, the song is clearly referring to a group to which the singer does not belong, and who engineered (or at least advocated) the death of Jesus.
But in that bit, the word used is 'man', which depending on use includes at least half of humanity and definitely includes the author.
Actually, the word used is "men", not "man". (At least according to the lyrics provided by Doublethink/Wikipedia.) That's a bit ambiguous, as it could refer to a specific group of men. This possibility is reinforced by the statement that none of the men "would know" "the longed-for Christ", in contrast to the singer who refers to Jesus as "my Friend", indicating another difference between the singer and "them".
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
Vade mecum--a poet of the 17th century wouldn't play fast and loose with his (or her) pronouns. 'I' meant 'I'. 'We' meant 'we'. 'They' meant 'those others,' and so forth. If you think otherwise, you should give either another instance or a sentence on the matter from one of the contemporaneous manuals of rhetoric.
...
I know it's not quite the same (no linguist), but "Ask not for whom the bell tolls" has elements of a switch. In fact looking at context it seems even stronger.
Actually on the surface the (linguists'?) Charles 1 opinion makes a lot of sense, with what we know of the author of the time-and therefore intent, in which case renouncing (in which case having the we/they switch) or denying (in which case not) a different 'them'.
Actually, Donne is strict with his use of pronouns in that--Devotion 17 (IIRC) of 'Devotions Upon Emergent Occasions.' Take a look at it.
And, please, at a time when it was dangerous for Royalist clergy to publish coded tributes to their cause, so that, for instance, Herrick put his in the form of a lament for the short-lived daffodils, you are not going to find a supporter of Parliament, a Puritan divine, as Crossman was, writing something in which the code is 'for Jesus, read Charles, King and Martyr.'
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
Will look at that
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
And, please, at a time when it was dangerous for Royalist clergy to publish coded tributes to their cause, so that, for instance, Herrick put his in the form of a lament for the short-lived daffodils, you are not going to find a supporter of Parliament, a Puritan divine, as Crossman was, writing something in which the code is 'for Jesus, read Charles, King and Martyr.' [/QB]
But on this...If Wikipedia is to believed he was expelled for being too Puritan in 62. ("he renounced his puritan allegiences soon afterward") The song was written in 64. He became royal chaplain in 65.
Time wise it sounds worryingly convincing, if we're guessing at authorial intent.
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
So who are the 'they' who shouted hosannah and crucify?
It's synecdochic, the people present at that time standing in for the ungrateful inconsistent traits of all people. The I is the individual reflecting upon the passion.
Furthermore if I say, 'I believe all people are sinners - they can't attain perfection, who am I to strive for such a goal' it doesn't mean I don't think I am a person or I am somehow not a sinner.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
Read the section now,
not sure where it leaves my point. On the one hand he (that is Donne) is quite clear at the distinction e.g. "that it might be ours as well as his, whose indeed it is"...on the other hand throughout the piece and especially in that one line there the view shifts (intentionally) from 'I(Donne)'/'him(the stiff)'/'yourself(the obedient reader)'.
And of course in the Crossman piece he wasn't physically there, so there is a them that he's not part of, (so by those same rules shouldn't put 'we') whether or not he identified them as especially other (i.e. the blood libel theory) or a similar other (i.e. the made lovely theory).
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I don't see that as a reference to the Jews, I see it as a reference to humanity. The Jews made strange, with the same scansion if he had wanted to.
That doesn't track with the rest of the lyrics, unless we're to believe that the singer somehow stands outside of humanity. While not necessarily representing the Jews, the song is clearly referring to a group to which the singer does not belong, and who engineered (or at least advocated) the death of Jesus.
St Peter is pretty fucked then.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The British Journal of RE did a research article some time back (not online - a long time ago) about children singing hymns in assembly and adults who took things literally - it suggested we need to keep a tight control of what is sung and how it can be distorted.
You could use the exact same line of argument to prevent people reading the Bible unsupervised.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The British Journal of RE did a research article some time back (not online - a long time ago) about children singing hymns in assembly and adults who took things literally - it suggested we need to keep a tight control of what is sung and how it can be distorted.
You could use the exact same line of argument to prevent people reading the Bible unsupervised.
Well, the church did, once!
Indeed, the Bible is the church's book, ideally read in community.
And Judaism doesn't allow serious Torah study until age 40 and in pairs.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I know the church did, once. The whole reason that translating the Bible into English was fiercely resisted, to the point of martyring translators, was fear over what would happen if people could read the Bible for themselves.
I just don't expect that kind of argument to be run by anyone from a Protestant church in the 21st century.
The reality is that things are open to interpretation, and with the best will in the world you can't stop people coming up with weird, unintended or problematic interpretations. They'll do it with the Bible, they'll do it with the poetry of hymn texts, they'll do it with legislation despite my best professional efforts to ensure they don't.
But that's the risk you take whenever you attempt to communicate. Until we get around to having Vulcan mind melds, we don't have a perfect means of conveying ideas direct from one consciousness to another. I can't see that as any kind of good reason to stop people from seeing ideas, though.
If you want people to understand that 'the Jews' who were complicit in Jesus' death were a pretty small group of folk rather than an entire nation, you do that by talking about it, not by creating a set of forbidden texts!
EDIT: Especially not by casting your net for forbidden texts so wide that you capture pieces of poetry that make no mention of Jews whatsoever and can only be interpreted as anti-Semitic by reference to BIBLICAL texts that mention the Jews.
[ 08. September 2013, 14:24: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
