Shakespeare steals from Job?

Sorry for delay in new article, which I will post tomorrow. In meantime:

I always get a real surprised look when I inform people that parts of Shakespeare were at least “adapted” from the Bible.

I discovered this intriguing gem of information years ago from a Barnes & Noble bargain rack book, the 1996 Reader’s Digest reference guide called The Bible Through the Ages.

As the guide reports, “The Geneva Bible was the edition in general use in England during Shakespeare’s time, and much of the language of his plays and sonnets echoes its wording and themes. In particular, echoes of the Geneva translation of the Book of Job can be heard in Othello, Richard II, and As You like It and in Hamlet’s most famous soliloquy."

Act III, Scene 1 of Hamlet reads, “To be, or not to be, that is the Question: Whether ’tis Nobler in the minde to suffer The Slings and Arrowes of outragious Fortune, Or to take Armes against a Sea of troubles, And by opposing end them: To dye, to sleepe, No more; and by a Sleepe, to say we end The Heart-ake, and the thousand Naturall shockes That Flesh is heyre to?

Job 6: 2-4 and Job 7:21 read, “Oh that my grief were wel weighed,. . . For it wolde be now heavyer than the sand of the sea: therefore my wordes are swallowed up. For the arrows of the Almightie are in me . . . & the terrours of God fight against me. . . now shal I slepe in the dust, and if thou sekest me in the morning, I shal not be founde.”

*****

It was at the same time Shakespeare was writing Macbeth in early 17^th-century England that the King James Bible  was published, becoming the most influential rendering of the Bible in English and quickly supplanting the Geneva Bible as the most popular text for private use.

“The literary quality of the King James Version—the strength and nobility of its language combined with its openness to a variety of interpretations—has earned it an indisputable authority,” affirms the Reader’s Digest book. “Because the text of the King James Version was to be used at church services, the translators worked hard to make it suitable for reading aloud—its punctuation indicated emphasis and its rhythmic prose could be used to great effect.

“The translators noted in the preface that they made a deliberate attempt not to be restricted ‘to a uniformity of phrasing, or an identity of words.’ The very freedom and richness of the language lend the translation freshness.

“The text’s oral quality can also be traced to the translation process. Since each translator had to read his version aloud to the others, his work was written as language to be spoken.”

*****

King James Bible scholar Gail Riplinger, author of the 1994 book New Age Bible Versions, makes the point that while people in modern times like to comment, “Why can’t the Bible speak as we speak?” the answer is, “Because we are not speaking—GOD is speaking.”

She refers to the passage in Exodus 4 that reads, “And Moses said unto the LORD, O my Lord, I am not eloquent, neither heretofore, nor since thou hast spoken unto thy servant: but I am slow of speech, and of a slow tongue.
[11] And the LORD said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the LORD?
[12] Now therefore go, and I will be with thy mouth, and teach thee what thou shalt say.”

Riplinger writes, “God did not say to Moses, ‘Forget eloquence! Use plain talk!’ Rather, God said He would teach him eloquence. (He truly did! Many linguists trace the origin of the alphabet to Mt. Sinai. See Mysteries of the Alphabet by Marc-Alain Ouaknin translated by Josephine Bacon, New York: Abbeville Press Publishers, 1999.)

*****

In a study on the reliability of the King James Bible as God’s perfectly preserved infallible Word, Ohio preacher David Reid argues, “The way God’s going to preserve His word is there’s going to be copies upon copies upon copies made by the believing church (and not the religious establishment).

“So when people give you the nonsense that the King James is based upon the later manuscripts that aren’t as good, baloney! These were based upon the original because there was a copy, and then a copy, and then a copy.

“And you know what? If you haven’t noticed the fact that your Bible will wear out as you use it, shame on you. Right?! The fact that these (false minority manuscripts Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) still existed means what? They weren’t being used! Isn’t that what it means? People weren’t reading them.”

*****

Reid continues, “Prophecy demonstrates the truth of the Word of God. Prophecy is history written in advance; it’s not simply that God is a good guesser. It’s not even simply that God is omniscient. It’s much more than that.

“Have you ever gone to see a play by Shakespeare? Does it follow the book? Shakespearian plays do not follow the text, and the reason why is when they’re performed today the text is too long, so they edit out certain things. Even if you know the text perfectly in advance and go to the play, you know in some sense what will happen but you don’t know the details.

“My point is, even if you had read the text in advance, you would know a lot of what happens but you wouldn’t know everything because there’d be things that you know that didn’t take place. . .

“. . . In Isaiah. 46:8, God declares from the beginning what He will accomplish. Have you ever read the Koran? The Koran is a difficult read because it’s very convoluted. When you read the Koran, Noah doesn’t get on the ark; Moses does! Now you and I understand Noah was on the ark and not Moses, but my point is if you look at the great religious works of the world and you compare them to the Bible, it is a meaningless comparison.

“The Bible declares things hundreds and thousands of years before they happen in minute detail, and you read the Koran and it can’t get history right.

“By the way, what happened with Muhammad was he had significant Bible knowledge that was passed to him orally, but he didn’t have a good memory or understanding, and so he records things wrong and gets the wrong people on the ark. If that offends you I’m sorry, but you can read the thing for yourself and realize it’s just historically wrong. That’s the nature of it. It’s not at all like the Scriptures are.”