Shakespeare or Tyndale?

[peter]

In his wonderful book A Little History of Literature author and Professor of Literature, John Sutherland states at the end of his chapter on the King James Bible

In our respect for the Authorised Version - the only truly great work of literature in English for which we can thank a King - we should never forget William Tyndale. He is an author of equal standing, one might claim, with the greatest in his language. And that does not exclude Shakespeare.

The grounds on which Sutherland makes this claim are that The King James Bible, while ostensibly the creation of a commitee of authors comissioned to create the definative translation that would sit above any given religion [and simultaniously create a direct bridge between heaven and 'God's appointed Sovreign'], is essentially [or at least 80%] the work of Tyndale, drawing as it did on his earlier translation from source material, of the Pentateuch and the New Testament.

I've got some sympathy with this position. Don't get me wrong I love Shakespeare, but if you pick up a half decent book of quotations and actually see just how much of Tyndale's rich prose [and his translation is by no means the most accurate; he never sacrificed a good turn of phrase on the alter of slavish adherence to the original] has found it's way into the daily lexicon we use to express our deepest thoughts - then it is hard to disagree.
There is a richness to the prose of the KJB that I think has rarely been matched [consider the 'The quality of mercy is not strained..., The race is not to the swift...., Consider the lillies of the feild....] even in Shakespeare at his best. There is just something so beautifully almost 'over the top' about it. Professor Harold Bloom said in his book The Western Cannon that the KJB would be one of the greatest pieces of written literature ever, even were it not a religious text of the greatest import; for this we must thank Tyndale.

As an aside would anyone care to say what their favorite work of Shakespeare is. I know that the Big Four would be considered to be Hamlet, Othello, Lear and Macbeth, but I have to say my all over favorite is Much Ado about Nothing. This was I think the first play I ever saw performed live and then I went to see Brannagh's beautifull film with himself and Emma Thompson - and I was hooked on it for good. Hamlet has always made the best reading to me, but when all's said and done I've always been a sucker for a happy ending and Much Ado About Nothing has the best!

[Avatar]

Oh, I love the KJV for it's text. Pity about the unicorns and such, but it has a rolling grandeur that sits well on the tongue I've always thought.

I went to see Brannagh's beautifull film with himself and Emma Thompson - and I was hooked on it for good.

Brilliant film. I love it.

--A

[peter]

Has to be the best 'hook' into Shakespeare ever!

[michaelm]

Oh, I love the KJV for it's text. Pity about the unicorns and such, but it has a rolling grandeur that sits well on the tongue I've always thought.

I completely agree, it's a hugely influential book, regardless of how anachronistic its content is . The language just makes it so much more readable. I've read it cover to cover a couple of times, although the first time I tried it was with a 'modern' bible - without the language of the KJB it's a dull, lifeless collection of paper.

I would still rather read Shakespeare than the KJB any day though.

[Orlion]

I would say Shakespeare was better, just because Tyndale was a translator. I have more respect for someone who "creates poetry wholesale" as it were, it makes their work more their own. Tyndale's work heavily relies on an existing work.

[peter]

I don't know just how much literary art is in the original texts. Is it possible they said "I wandered about a bit on my own", where Tyndales translation said "I wandered lonely as a cloud"?

[Orlion]

I don't know just how much literary art is in the original texts. Is it possible they said "I wandered about a bit on my own", where Tyndales translation said "I wandered lonely as a cloud"?

Tyndale certainly put a certain spin on his translation, but he still relies on the source material to construct those nuggets of literary art.

[michaelm]

I don't know just how much literary art is in the original texts. Is it possible they said "I wandered about a bit on my own", where Tyndales translation said "I wandered lonely as a cloud"?

Tyndale certainly put a certain spin on his translation, but he still relies on the source material to construct those nuggets of literary art.

But so did Shakespeare - most of his plays were based on existing works.

[peter]

I take Orlion's point. A translation is a translation is a translation, and like it or not some of the art is bound to be in the idea as well as the expression [or at least in the way the two marry together].

[Linna Heartbooger]

Drat... I am Linna Late-to-the-Party again....

I don't know just how much literary art is in the original texts. Is it possible they said "I wandered about a bit on my own", where Tyndales translation said "I wandered lonely as a cloud"?

Translation does involve contextualization... getting the wording into something that translates the meaning - and emotional tone - of the text into the new language.

Once I've heard of someone actually flipping two words to opposites when they translated something for a tribe in So. America - and it seemed to really truly fit, because of the the diff. geography.
(would love to tell that story... don't encourage me!)

But actually - there's TONS of literary art in the sources he was translating!
I am not myself a Hebrew nerd, buuuut... apparently, the Old Testament is chock-full of ...puns!
Who thinks of the Almighty as using humor a bunch?
Kind of like good counselors, or a comedians who want others to see what they see. (persuasive teachers, they can be!)
I could babble on and on...

My fave Shakespeare play would be probably Hamlet or King Lear!

[peter]

I haven't read the bible, or not at least cover to cover , but I have never thought of the OT as a rich scource of puns it has to be said! Did they survive the translation into the KJ version Lina, therein to be found today by the astute reader?

[michaelm]

I don't know that I ever noticed that the bible has any puns. For the most part I find it a very humorless work, and I read it for the reasons given above.

I had zero religion impressed upon me growing up, so I had no interest in it from a theological standpoint, but its influence is so ubiquitous that I found it really helped with reading a literature from an age where Christianity was much more prevalent in Europe.

[Linna Heartbooger]

Did they survive the translation into the KJ version Lina, therein to be found today by the astute reader?

Alas, many of them did not, and would be difficult to translate into any language!
Some humor still shows up though, and some can be guessed at and then researched to check "is that really meaning what it sounds like it does?"

In English, Shakespeare can have a dialog where Armado calls his page a "tender juvenal," the whippersnapper can shoot back with "tough senior."
But what if you're translating his work to a language where you would never use "tender" both to describe a child and the opposite of "tough"?

I am told that nearly every proverb in the book of Proverbs has some "snap" to it. Here's one that gets used as an example where the "snap" survives translation:
"The rich man’s wealth is his strong city,
and as an high wall in his own conceit."
(Proverbs 18:11)
Other translations say, "in his imagination"!

I totally want to find a good example or two of an actual pun though... all the ones I've thought of so far are kind of offensive!

michaelm- ah.. do you get the feel that the world was so different back then, and their experiences are so different from ours that what's the point?

[Vraith]

Did they survive the translation into the KJ version Lina, therein to be found today by the astute reader?

Alas, many of them did not, and would be difficult to translate into any language!

Certain kinds of jokes...and puns are one...might be one of the things even harder to translate than the poetic.
[[some, OTOH, are pretty easy. Fart jokes transcend language/culture...though we may only get a whiff of some subtler overtones]]

As far as the New Testament...from decades ago, I recall hearing that there are a fair number of jokes/puns.
The one I think I remember is that the line "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church." is a joke in a couple ways. First cuz the name, Peter, did [and does even in translation, modern use] literally mean "rock." And also cuz saying someone was a rock meant things it still does: Solid, reliable. But also a bit dumb/slow-witted/thick-headed/stubborn. And that humor was on purpose...but not much paid attention to nowadays. And that's a relatively easy one to translate.
[[you, L, surely know this stuff better than me...I just think remember that one. Probably cuz it cracked me up at the time.]]

[Linna Heartbooger]

As far as the New Testament...from decades ago, I recall hearing that there are a fair number of jokes/puns.

You saying this called to mind a staging decision that I thought I saw in "The Jesus Film."
...holding a huge, unwieldy board up to His eye... turning His head like someone who might whack people six feet away if He wasn't careful:
"Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?"
It was... quite hilarious. And fitting.

The one I think I remember is that the line "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church." is a joke in a couple ways. First cuz the name, Peter, did [and does even in translation, modern use] literally mean "rock." And also cuz saying someone was a rock meant things it still does: Solid, reliable. But also a bit dumb/slow-witted/thick-headed/stubborn.

Ah, Peter... he was the impulsive "first one out of the boat," and the first one (or the only one) to raise his hand when everyone in the class is confused by what the Master is teaching.
He would be the one most often sounding like a blockhead... sounds plausible.

It also goes really well with Jesus' earlier line to him: "For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven."
(from the "you would never have figured this out yourself" angle)

[[you, L, surely know this stuff better than me...I just think remember that one. Probably cuz it cracked me up at the time.]]

...always more to learn, always more to learn.
I'm still adjusting to the knowledge that in that very exchange, Jesus was actually saying that it was the contents of the statement Peter had just made - not Peter himself - that was the rock.
It's so easy to read something the wrong way for a long time, and that's what I'd done.

[peter]

I've started reading a 'bible designed to be read as literature' as edited by Ernest Sutherland Bates. In a very interesting introduction guy called Lawrence Binyon outlines a number of reasons why there are distinct advantages to reading the bible in this form over the traditional arrangement. Firstly [he says] the usual way the bible is presented is just so damn difficult to read! With all the chapter and verse numbers arbitrarily stuck in all over the place, the unnecesary repetitions, and the miserable double column presentation, the thing is virtually unreadable, let alone something one could take pleasure from. But secondly [and very significantly I feel] he observes that the effect of the Hebrew poetry, in which apparently much of the text is written, is entierly lost.

He goes on to describe how Hebrew poetry has neither metre or rhyme, but neither does it take the form of 'loose' or 'free' verse. Rather he says "it's priciple is what has come to be called 'parallelism'; that is a a symetrical arrangement of parralel clauses". In it's simplest form apparently, two or three of these clauses will occur - but also to be found are multiples of such in more complex [almost stanza-like] arrangement. He describes this examination of meaning like holding up a diamond and examining it from the different perspectives of each of it's faceted faces.

Another bennefit of reading the bible presented in the form of a normal book, is that the overlapping and sometimes barely discernable movement from prose into verse and back again can be more easily made apparent and thus the better appreciated. I have to say the mans enthusiasm is infectious and I hope to be able over the coming weeks, to translate this into a full reading of this momentous work.

[edit: Think I might just have found one of those 'puns' Lina referred to. from Wikipedia

The name Edom means 'red' in Hebrew, and was given to Esau, the eldest son of the Hebrew patriarch Issac, once he ate the 'red pottage', which the Bible used in irony at the fact he was born 'red all over'.

].

[Linna Heartbooger]

...he observes that the effect of the Hebrew poetry, in which apparently much of the text is written, is entierly lost.

He goes on to describe how Hebrew poetry has neither metre or rhyme, but neither does it take the form of 'loose' or 'free' verse. Rather he says "it's priciple is what has come to be called 'parallelism'; that is a a symetrical arrangement of parralel clauses". In it's simplest form apparently, two or three of these clauses will occur - but also to be found are multiples of such in more complex [almost stanza-like] arrangement. He describes this examination of meaning like holding up a diamond and examining it from the different perspectives of each of it's faceted faces.

I like that description!
It is really cool stuff.
When some parallels, inverted parallels, and contrasts are pointed out, they really make a person go, "Woah. That WAS in there. And... woahh.."

And I love the language.... even translated into English, so much of the Bible is vivid, visceral, and visual.
Grabs you by the gut.

...the overlapping and sometimes barely discernable movement from prose into verse and back again can be more easily made apparent and thus the better appreciated. I have to say the mans enthusiasm is infectious and I hope to be able over the coming weeks, to translate this into a full reading of this momentous work.

Allllright!
I love it when I get to learn from somebody with that kind of infectious enthusiasm or passion!

(I would love to hear if you've begun that quest.)

[edit: Think I might just have found one of those 'puns' Lina referred to. from Wikipedia

The name Edom means 'red' in Hebrew, and was given to Esau, the eldest son of the Hebrew patriarch Issac, once he ate the 'red pottage', which the Bible used in irony at the fact he was born 'red all over'.

].

Alll-right! Names are a common place for ironies to occur!


Sorry for my mega posting-delay... this such an exalted topic...
In the Bible, there's sublime and esteemed literature, and there's also...
the dialog, the communion, the dealings between... man and God!
Sometimes I get awkward about what to say.

[peter]

Hi Lena ,

I've had a few good bashes and have progressed [not as far as I should but] as far as The Book of Judges. I have put The Bible down for a while [though fully intend to carry on shortly] because I'm afraid to say I found myself becoming rather judgemental in respect of the killings being perpetrated by Joshua et al in pursuit of their occupation of the Promised Land. This is not fair, taking the 'story' as it does, out of the context of the time and place in which the events are set. For this purpose I decided to let the story 'settle' for a while before continuing. The conversion into a straightforward reading text [by removal of the repetition, chapter and verse marks and double columns] certainly facilitates it's reading and makes for more comfortable experience. The text is certainly rich and full of imagery, and I'm begining to be able to separate poetry from prose in places other than where the editor has specifically presented the text in one or the other form. All in all I'm favorably inclined toward this way of tackling this monumental work. I'll let you know when I get further into the text, of any observations I have on it.

[Linna Heartbooger]

Hi Lena

That's "Linnn-nna"!
I don't wanna perpetuate a 'victim mentality'?

I've had a few good bashes and have progressed [not as far as I should but] as far as The Book of Judges. I have put The Bible down for a while [though fully intend to carry on shortly] because I'm afraid to say I found myself becoming rather judgemental in respect of the killings being perpetrated by Joshua et al in pursuit of their occupation of the Promised Land. This is not fair, taking the 'story' as it does, out of the context of the time and place in which the events are set.

Well, thanks for your restraint in talking to me!
I expect most people just to want to punch God in the nose (to put it mildly?) after reading the conquest of the Promised Land.

I'm wondering what you thought of the getting-off-scot-free that Rahab and her family seem to get because of Joshua chapter 2.
Does it seem vexing? hopeful? bizarre? understandable?

For this purpose I decided to let the story 'settle' for a while before continuing. The conversion into a straightforward reading text [by removal of the repetition, chapter and verse marks and double columns] certainly facilitates it's reading and makes for more comfortable experience. The text is certainly rich and full of imagery, and I'm begining to be able to separate poetry from prose in places other than where the editor has specifically presented the text in one or the other form. All in all I'm favorably inclined toward this way of tackling this monumental work. I'll let you know when I get further into the text, of any observations I have on it.

Sweet.
This past summer, I totally got to hear this one theology dude rant about the original text didn't have chapter divisions or verse numbers!

Also, the atrocities you will see in Judges, you will find explicitly spoken against and/or lamented in the text to the rhythm of a repetitive motif by the narrator of that book.
(narrative comments/asides like "he did this because he thought such-and-such was true" are SOOO much fun to track.)

[peter]

Sorry Linna ,

I think in respect of the Rahab Story, as I was reading it I was just wishing that a little of the same degree of mercy could bave been spread a bit wider by the Chosen People as they progressed into the Promised Land. A lady who I work with who has a fair knowledge of the Bible seemed to think I have [possibly] covered the worst of it [if that's a fair way to describe it] from that point of view, and that the reading would get 'easier' in this sense from now on; this would seem to be borne out by what you say, and I look forward to perhaps being more able to enjoy the text when the subject matter does not seem so ....well....cruel. I'll keep you posted.