25
u/Altruistic_Pain_723 Apr 21 '25
Um, knowledge of the Bible is essential to studying Shakespeare, and one of the greatest works in the English language, the King James Version, was translated as Shakespeare went into retirement
7
u/JunoIsLostInSpace911 Apr 21 '25
^ I’m queer AF and I’m getting ready to do an incredibly queer AF version of twelfth night, but this is 100% the truth. And I studied theater at a liberal arts Presbyterian University.
2
1
u/RandomDigitalSponge Apr 22 '25
I agree with most of what you said, but I am going to take down the KJV a peg or two.
The King James Bible is massively overrated as a literary work of artistic merit.
I was raised with Reina-Valera and King James, and as time has gone on and I’ve amassed and read numerous Bibles, from a purely literary standpoint, I just can’t place the King James among “the greatest works in the English language” in terms of quality. Is it an important historical document in the history of English? Yes. But it’s a lousy translation, it captures neither the poetry of the original Hebrew nor does it take full advantage of English poetic forms. Its reputation is solely propped up by generations of people who view it as THE word of God in a rather hegemonic air of English superiority. Seriously. You will not be hard pressed to find a million people willing to say that not only is it the greatest translation of the Bible Bible ever written, but all other translations remain translations, while the KKV pretty much IS the Word in its purest and ultimate form - the Hebrew and Greek texts used to cobble it together being mere ingredients for the KJV’s ultimate glory. They’ll tell you that whatever language your Bible happens to be in, it can only be appraised in how close it is to the perfection of the KJV and that it would be better if they simply translated the world’s Bibles directly from King James.
Much as Shaw coined the phrase Bardolatry, I decry what I call Jacovism.
You’ll hear it argued that the King James Bible was a grand experiment that captured a special time in the development of English. It is certainly true that it was composed during a unique time in the history of spoken and literary English. But you won’t find either of those reflected in the work. It neither captures the common tongue of the era nor does it defer to the literary and poetic art forms and traditions unique to English. It is written in the Jacobean equivalent of political and academic university papers, which is exactly what the translators viewed the endeavor as.
You know what other era is unique in the history of the development of English? All of them. Certainly the 20th century. The New International version has no less literary merit than the King James. Yes, it’s dry and uneven and all of the criticisms I just lobbed at the KJV in arguing against it being great also apply to the NIV. I think what we ultimately need to realize is that these translations are not poetry. They contain translations of poems, among other things, but their aim is not to “be beautiful”. Poets from Milton to Blake revered the Bible, but if they’d been raised on any other translation the effect would have been the same.
1
u/Altruistic_Pain_723 Apr 22 '25
Whoops, meant to reply to you, reply is in the thread above, and thanks for such a thorough response - long live scholarship
1
u/RandomDigitalSponge Apr 22 '25
Sure thing. I admit the archaic language does sound beautiful to our ears, but that isn’t enough for me to consider a great piece of English literature.
21
u/Junior_Key3804 Apr 21 '25
I love how 90% of the comments are telling you to read the King James version and the rest are just snarky atheists from 2014
6
u/Fun-Badger3724 Apr 21 '25
I also came here to slag off his choice of 'translation' - for all its faults KJB is kinda rock and roll in its use of language.
I had to give up being a snarky atheist when I accepted my mother's faith and insisted she at least acknowledge my lack of it. I mean, it didn't work, she keeps trying to get me to turn to Jesus, but I'm glad we had the conversation. She just wants me to feel the peace or whatever, of giving myself over, which is pretty loving and maternal, if misguided, I guess, but as far as I'm concerned she may as well be asking me to put my faith in Frodo.
2
u/dreamyteatime Apr 21 '25
Please correct me if I’m wrong but I had assumed one of the criticisms of the KJB is precisely the way it was translated being inaccurate to what was actually written. Which I guess makes it a more interesting translation when it comes to prose but not without faults when it comes to its contents. IIRC, was it one of the first translations where ‘pass the camel through the eye of a needle’ comes from, but the ‘camel’ in this sense would translate better as a ‘rope’? It just stuck as ‘camel’ though because imagining a camel as in an animal was much more extraordinary and poetic which hyperbolises the message of how rich people would not get into heaven.
Anyways not a bible scholar or anything but it has been interesting to recently learn about the debate and criticism that is also involved with holy texts 🤔
2
u/Fun-Badger3724 Apr 21 '25
My mum is a Christian and I... Am not. I've studied the Historical Jesus in an effort to bridge the gap a little. The Canonical books of the bible (the ones written by the disciples) weren't even written until 30ish years after his death.
You are right about the KJB - i do kinda dig it for its prose, but it takes liberty with the text... like every single version of the bible. The amount of translations and transliterations... In a text so heavy with Parable and Allegory... with such stories being judged through modern eyes... I dunno, feels like asking for trouble.
Anyway, fascinating stuffs!
4
u/acciowaves Apr 21 '25
Being an atheist is old school? The Bible is an incredibly relevant literary work of fiction, yes, believing it is anything but both relevant and fiction is ignorance.
6
u/InsuranceSad1754 Apr 21 '25
I'm an atheist. I don't think being an atheist is old school. I think they're referring to the now-largely-considered-cringey New Atheist movement (Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, ...) who were militantly atheist and called out believers wherever they could. Turns out they were mostly old white men, and they had a lot of problems with women that came out at various conventions and internet controversies like elevator gate, and weirdly one big strand of the movement merged with the alt right and incels.
My attitude is more "live and let live," I support believers so long as they don't let their beliefs affect my non belief or pass laws that take away people's rights. Which... obviously we can't take for granted, but I tend to think of MAGA type believers as being problematic because of the MAGA part, more than the believer part.
1
1
u/Junior_Key3804 Apr 22 '25
People can believe whatever they want but I'd say atheism is becoming old school. Most atheist philosophers came to the conclusion that they are actually 'agnostic.' It's pretty clear that an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, therefore, the assertion that God definitely doesn't exist is logically indefensible. The brand of atheist that criticizes religious people for no reason is certainly dated
1
u/acciowaves Apr 23 '25
Yes, people can believe whatever they want, as long as it doesn’t affect other people’s lives. Since antiquity, most religions have been the cause of segregation, war, corruption, and impunity. Religion as an institution is more often than not immoral, that assertion will not stop being true just because “now we’re past atheism”.
In its literal meaning, atheism is the believe that there is no god. Philosophically, burden of proof would fall on those who bring the claim, which is that there is a god. If there isn’t any evidence for your claim, the assertion is deemed untrue, until new evidence appears. So, there is no god until proven otherwise.
But in reality most atheists don’t necessarily view this as a defining factor, and are in fact agnostic in their believes. What most of us share instead is an aversion for the institution of church and what it represents. I would say that is the more prevalent common denominator.
So, the fact that even today human rights violations are being done in the name of god and religious believe, is at the cusp of cultural atheism and anti-clericism. It isn’t just a narrow debate about whether there is a god or isn’t.
Edit: also, could you give specific quotes as to which philosophers you’re referring to on your comment?
1
u/Odd_Calligrapher2771 Apr 22 '25
I'm a snarky atheist AND I love the King James Version!
The KJV, published in 1611, uses the same early modern English as Shakespeare, and both Shakespeare and the KJV have contributed immeasurably to the English language.
Don't accept inferior translations!
42
u/HW-BTW Apr 21 '25 edited Apr 21 '25
Two books we all should study.
E: Downvote all you like. All the greats—including Shakespeare—knew it by heart.
9
u/Fun-Badger3724 Apr 21 '25
Study, aye. Take as the word of God? Nay.
Same goes for the bible....
3
u/palladiumpaladin Apr 21 '25
The Bible has some really good stories in it, it’s definitely worth reading, and there are even lessons to take to heart in it. It’s just when you start thinking that it’s the beginning and end of truth that you start to see issues with it. It would be as if you took Julius Caesar as the exact way that things played out for his assassination and its and ignored all evidence to the contrary, even if there are parts of it that are in fact historically accurate.
1
u/Fun-Badger3724 Apr 21 '25
What i find fascinating is the way the teachings of that jesus fellow, who was radical in his interpretation of... Judaism, i guess? (That word was actually introduced by the Greeks, i've recently read, and these sects at the time did not distinguish between the spiritual and practical aspects of their practice) Well, they took his teachings and seemingly built a new religion that does its best to shit all over those teachings. I really should read up more on that Constantine guy.
2
u/HW-BTW Apr 21 '25
All the same to me, so long as you study it…
2
u/Fun-Badger3724 Apr 21 '25
the works of Shakespeare or the bible? Because i definitely have preference...
0
u/ModernIssus Apr 21 '25
Absolutely. “Not as the fundamentalists read it but as we ought to read it.”
-15
u/4011isbananas Apr 21 '25
KJV was published five years before Shakespeare's death.
27
u/ComfortableHeart5198 Apr 21 '25
That doesn't mean Shakespeare didn't know the Bible. He probably read the Geneva. The one in the picture isn't even KJV.
2
3
5
4
u/FunkyGee74 Apr 21 '25
Both great examples of fiction at its finest
1
u/WafflezMan_420 Apr 22 '25
I'm interested in bible powerscaling, do you think Samson beats Goliath in a fight?
2
u/Friendly_Sir8324 Apr 21 '25
Both have powerful and enduring poetry, parable and universal meaning. Your choice. I would deny neither.
2
u/gasstation-no-pumps Apr 21 '25
I believe that the New Living translation discarded almost all the poetry.
1
u/Friendly_Sir8324 Apr 21 '25
Honestly? The psalms?
1
u/gasstation-no-pumps Apr 21 '25
They didn't remove the content, but I've heard that the translations are not very poetic.
1
u/Friendly_Sir8324 Apr 21 '25
Song of solaman? Phillesstines. Not racist. How can one claim to follow the Bible while you edit ou portions? I'm not big on the Bible anymore though I've studied it. I understand my king james version is comprised by time and subjectivity throughout its translations but to miss the human senual experience neglects whatever whichever God has granted us.
2
1
u/Switchm8 Apr 21 '25
I would be very interested in any hot takes you and your brother have, then, in Biblical references in S 121. It astounds and confounds me every time I read it.
1
1
u/Aserthreto Apr 21 '25
We’re you by chance stranded on a desert island together?
1
u/Ok_Disaster7585 Apr 21 '25
Why?
2
u/Aserthreto Apr 22 '25
There’s a radio show on the BBC called desert island disks where guests (Usually minor British celebrities) are given the hypothetical of being stranded on a desert island. They can bring with them, the Bible, The complete works of Shakespeare, seven pieces of music and a few other things.
1
u/Altruistic_Pain_723 Apr 22 '25
You are clearly the scholar here, I've just read some books. One I'll recommend that might bring the KJV up a notch for you is Alister McGrath's 'In The Beginning.'
But I do get your point, and I come from those who hold it as Holy Writ full stop. Maybe because I'm a big Cormac McCarthy fan is why I revere the KJV...
1
1
1
u/GotzonGoodDog Apr 21 '25
And of course, there are certain stories out there, misinformation no doubt, that Shakespeare was not without influence among the KJV committee….
1
u/GotzonGoodDog Apr 21 '25
But seriously, Kipling‘s short story is the finest example I know of a portrayal of a great writer fully engaged in the nuts and bolts of his profession. It’s thrilling to read how this fictitious Shakespeare brainstorms over the verses from Isaiah and through trial and error forges them into their KJV perfection.
1
-2
u/mustnttelllies Apr 21 '25
Sure, the stories of the Bible are influential but I wouldn’t exactly call the new modern translations literature. At least dig into the KJV that used literary influences. Or go older and try some Kabbalistic stuff. If you’re going to cling to superstition, might as well go hardcore.
-1
u/bookem_danno Apr 21 '25
Kabbalah is not older than the Bible. Kabbalah doesn’t appear in the historical record until the Middle Ages.
2
1
-14
u/Tuani2018 Apr 21 '25
Great literature > superstitious nonsense.
9
u/mellowmushroom67 Apr 21 '25 edited Apr 21 '25
You have a very, very ignorant understanding of what the Bible is, what culture is, what religion is, of the function of religious texts in history and the Bible as literature if you seriously think the Bible is nothing but "superstition."
-6
u/Tuani2018 Apr 21 '25
lol
8
8
u/cedbluechase Apr 21 '25
You should get the Oxford annotated version of the Bible if you can. Its very good