Capital letters for divine pronouns in 1945?

Can someone do a little research for me?

In the logos version of the Handbook of the Psalms under Psalm 9:17 thye following comment is made ......

To forget God means to ignore him (NJV), reject him, not worship him (see also 44:20; 50:22). NEB has “are heedless of God.” Cohen defines it thus: “Deliberately ignore His precepts and rebel against His rule.” Forget God tends to mean that people fail to remember God’s name or fail to recognize him. “Reject God” (TEV) is sometimes rendered “they say God is worthless,” or “they say ‘No’ to God,” or “they refuse to obey God.”

The citation is from Cohen's 1945 commentary on the Psalms. A book I do not have.

I would like to enter a typo for "His" (2x).

Can someone who has access to Cohen's commentary check for me whether Cohen used capital letters for pronouns referring to God?

Since he wrote in 1945 I would think not.

Stephen Miller

Wentworth Falls, Australia

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

MJ. Smith

From Google books

for discussion see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverential_capitalization

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/871201#Comment_871201

To me, not using it for His pronouns is akin to rejecting use of the Oxford/Harvard comma or rejecting automobiles in favor of donkeys.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/871221#Comment_871221

https://www.grammarly.com/blog/what-is-the-oxford-comma-and-why-do-people-care-so-much-about-it/ for those of us taught grammar when it was less popular.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/871224#Comment_871224

The article's point of AP style in newspapers not supporting the Oxford/Harvard comma is without exaggeration a major reason I don't enjoy reading newspapers. It drives me crazy, especially when the "not required" aspect becomes a habitual "default" even when context suffers.

On a similar vein, the "style issue" of using a dash for page numbers only if three or more pages are included (pp. 12-14), but using a comma for two adjacent pages (pp. 12, 13) also irks me. It is illogical on its face, and the proof is manifested by the way hyperlinks present the references, often breaking a sentence due to this ill-conceived tradition. Using a comma for gaps (pp. 12, 14) is perfectly fine, but if the pages are contiguous, hyperlinks clearly demonstrate that the dash isn't just a preference, it is a functional necessity.

Needless to say, Logos resources contain this faulty punctuation style (especially in verse references) in abundance. Truly irritating.

The correct way...Mt. 5:23-24
The Logos way...Mt. 5:23, 24

The second "style book" way requires hovering over two separate links to read the sentence while the first appears as an appropriate whole. As is often true of "traditional" authorities, the style books are wrong.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/871227#Comment_871227

I, on the other hand, see it as a matter of style and don't care which way it is done as long as it communicates clearly.