Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsThursday, October 15, 2009
Religion The King James Bible Was a Trannie
Posted by Chicago Fan on Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 8:50 AM
Not to drag the world of Slog kicking and screaming into the realm of scholarship, but the recent posts about some whackjob book-burning fundies proclaiming the King James Bible to be the one true Bible, and all others to be Satan's Bibles, made me recall a tidbit I'd learned at some point in my Jesuitical education.
As this informative website puts it, when the KJB was first published, it wasn't . . . perfect:
A typographical discrepancy in Ruth 3:15 rendered a pronoun "He" instead of "She" in that verse in some printings. This caused some of the 1611 First Editions to be known by collectors as "He" Bibles, and others as "She" Bibles.
So, God's perfect Bible is sometimes a He, sometimes a She. Sounds more like Tiresias than Jesus, but whatever.
Also, the original KJB included the Apocrypha, which were later removed. So God's one True Word is pretty revisable.
And who translated it? Committees of scholars, many of whom were experts in (ahem) Greek. There's even some theories that Shakespeare, Ben Jonson and other London theater types contributed their poetic expertise. And we all know how those theater types are.
So, OK, fundie whackjobs: we'll take your word for it. The Queerest Version of the Bible is the True One.
2
I spent the night of my birthday with insomnia two nights ago. We were in a hotel and it was too cold to go outside for a walk, so I spent three hours "fixing" the Gideon's bible, making liner notes, etc. I got through about a quarter of Genesis.
5
Oh come on: serious bible scholars know the KJV is just a rewriting (some might say plagarization) of the earlier Tyndale bible with just a little bit of updating.
The KJV's language was intentionally archaic-sounding when printed--to give it more 'heft', the 80 year old late Middle English phrasings were retained.
Tyndale was very keen on not only bringing the word to the common people in their language (and not Latin), but enhancing the authority of the Crown as an instrument of the Christian God.
In that sense, Tyndale's bible and its KJV derivative are perfect as instruments for modern day evangelical activists.
The KJV's language was intentionally archaic-sounding when printed--to give it more 'heft', the 80 year old late Middle English phrasings were retained.
Tyndale was very keen on not only bringing the word to the common people in their language (and not Latin), but enhancing the authority of the Crown as an instrument of the Christian God.
In that sense, Tyndale's bible and its KJV derivative are perfect as instruments for modern day evangelical activists.
6
If the Bible was written today, it would get laughed out of the publisher's office for all the contradictions, lack of continuity, and the thousands of other errors, and silliness..
7
@6, and yet the Twilight series can be picked up and made a hit among people who are not even tween girls. Sigh. I think we often overestimate the intellect of the publishers.
8
My own fave KJV mistranslation? Song of Solomon 2:12:
"The flowers appear on the earth; the time of the singing of birds is come, and the voice of the turtle is heard in our land."
Just plain wrong---not a turtle, but a turtledove---but the text for many misguided sermons on the miracle of God giving a voice to now-silent turtle. The richness of language and the consequences and hazards of that richness are endlessly instructive.
"The flowers appear on the earth; the time of the singing of birds is come, and the voice of the turtle is heard in our land."
Just plain wrong---not a turtle, but a turtledove---but the text for many misguided sermons on the miracle of God giving a voice to now-silent turtle. The richness of language and the consequences and hazards of that richness are endlessly instructive.
10
@6 - While that is true, keep in mind that there were multiple writers working from multiple sources at different times, and that the Bible is more of an anthology than a novel. The Gospels, for instance, tell the same story from four different perspectives for four different audiences. Of course there are inconsistencies. Matthew was writing for a Hebraic audience, who would respond to different things than the Greek Gentile audience Luke was writing for. Both used essentially the same source material (Mark and a source commonly called Q, though both probably had one additional source that was unique to them), but picked and chose what bits to include and what bits to ditch, then put a spin on the bits they included that spoke to their particular audience. That's why there are a lot more Old Testament references in Matthew than there are in Luke.
Of course, all of this is moot when dealing with an fundamentalist group. They don't believe historical criticism is valid when considering the Bible.
Of course, all of this is moot when dealing with an fundamentalist group. They don't believe historical criticism is valid when considering the Bible.
11
6
and yet, dispite your expert opinion, every year 2755 publishers worldwide sell 24,600,000 Bibles.
and yet, dispite your expert opinion, every year 2755 publishers worldwide sell 24,600,000 Bibles.
12
11, Because it was started before people knew things like the Earth is billions of years old and goes around the Sun. Now people are conditioned to it, so it lingers on.
14
13, Pretty much. The Bible as we know it didn't exist until 397 AD. It was put together by the Catholic Council of Carthage. There was much debate over which books, and which versions of books would and wouldn't be included. Before that people of different areas all followed their own widely varying versions. Even with all the haggling, the Bible is a literary mess.
15
@6,
Fuck that. It would be laughed out of a publisher's office because it's boring. Have you tried reading that thing? Most dry writing ever.
Fuck that. It would be laughed out of a publisher's office because it's boring. Have you tried reading that thing? Most dry writing ever.
16
15, I have read it, and I found it to be an interesting look at ancient mythology that for some reason some superstitious people still think is true, despite all it's problems. .
17
Sounds like someone just got out of Bible 101 class. Thanks for sharing this info that everyone already knows and no one cares about. When will SLOG stop trying to bait fundies to try to increase its readership? So tiresome . . . . . . .
18
The KJV is much gayer than the Revised Standard Version which essentially dumbed-down the poetic language of the King James. After seeing "Joseph & the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat" I hastened to read Genesis and found this RSV reference:
"Now Israel loved Joseph more than any other of his children because he was the son of his old age; and HE MADE HIM A LONG ROBE WITH SLEEVES."
A far cry from KJV which called it "a coat of many colours [including beige, puce and ecru"].
Ah, the Bible - like Aesop's Fables but doused with sanctimony, riddled with contradiction, forbidden sex and more wives and concubines for every man than Joseph Smith ever conjured.
"Now Israel loved Joseph more than any other of his children because he was the son of his old age; and HE MADE HIM A LONG ROBE WITH SLEEVES."
A far cry from KJV which called it "a coat of many colours [including beige, puce and ecru"].
Ah, the Bible - like Aesop's Fables but doused with sanctimony, riddled with contradiction, forbidden sex and more wives and concubines for every man than Joseph Smith ever conjured.
19
@5, you raise an interesting point that has been overlooked: the primary motivation of the KJV was political. It was specifically charged with legitimizing the English Reformation, the Church of England, and King James himself, against charges (absolutely true charges, mind you) that the Reformation wasn't about religion at all, but about Henry VIII's desire for male offspring and the wealth of the Catholic monasteries, which he stole (something like a quarter of the wealth of the country, if I recall correctly).
James wanted to make sure that that wealth and power stayed with him. That's why he ordered the KJV.
James wanted to make sure that that wealth and power stayed with him. That's why he ordered the KJV.
20
Yeah, 19, but poor Henry! He was sorely tried. He needed to divorce his menopausal wife to get an heir (this was just after a very bloody succession-based civil war which ended with his father's accession to the Crown), and ordinarily Rome had granted divorces or annulments for this kind of situation. Unfortunately, the Pope was essentially the prisoner of the Queen's nephew, Carlos of Spain (this being just after the Sack of Rome), so no dice. So Henry formed the C. of E., made himself its head, and gave himself his own damn divorce.
In all fairness, I think it only occurred much later to Henry that the monasteries were an untapped revenue source.
In all fairness, I think it only occurred much later to Henry that the monasteries were an untapped revenue source.
21
@17,
But that's the horribly point, isn't it? That all of this stuff is the kind of thing that ANY history of the Bible covers in the first couple of weeks. But people don't know it -- because everyone's an expert and no one's a scholar regarding the Bible.
But that's the horribly point, isn't it? That all of this stuff is the kind of thing that ANY history of the Bible covers in the first couple of weeks. But people don't know it -- because everyone's an expert and no one's a scholar regarding the Bible.
22
I like how in order to not "drag the world of Slog kicking and screaming into the realm of scholarship" you livened it up a bit with a "trannie" here and a "trannie" there. It's really refreshing to see such lively discussion where everyone gets to pretend they're hip and cool because they're not afraid to throw an epithet or two around. I bet you wouldn't even know a trannie if one spit in your face.
23
Btw, did ya'll notice that we've KILLED the original offending website via publicizing its BS: http://amazinggracebaptistchurchkjv.com
24
http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/categor…
You are all a bunch of heretics. How dare anyone question the King James. A white man's bible for a white man's religion
You are all a bunch of heretics. How dare anyone question the King James. A white man's bible for a white man's religion
26
@22 "Trannie" is not an epithet, it is a subject position, a transgendered person, and since the KJB has a He and a She version, that's a form of transgendered textual identity that would annoy the Fundies. Oh, "Fundie" is both an epithet and a subject position, but unlike "trannie" it's not ever used affirmatively. No "fundie" calls him or her or him/herself a "fundie," unlike many transgerendered people and their friends or acquaintances, who use the term "trannie" with more plasticity and contextual situational nuance.
And I only used the word once, in the headline, so I didn't exactly toss it around as you describe. Plus, you totally missed my pun on "drag" as a noun/verb in the lede. Moron.
And I only used the word once, in the headline, so I didn't exactly toss it around as you describe. Plus, you totally missed my pun on "drag" as a noun/verb in the lede. Moron.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Pill The Homos! by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Life Sentence by Dan Savage
-
Crowdsourcing Uncut Police Video from the Dec. 12 Occupy Protest at the Port of Seattle by Eli Sanders
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
Because Guns Make Us Safer by Goldy
-
The Onion Is on a Roll: "Iran Worried U.S. Might Be Building 8,500th Nuclear Weapon" by Charles Mudede
-
Gay Kids Are Still Killing Themselves by Dan Savage
-
Gregoire: "This is signed!" by Eli Sanders
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (26) RSS