Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Is Shakespeare even bigger than we thought?

Scarlet Fever

Scarlet Fever

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Jul 22, 2005
3,262
0
Bookshop!
For last Christmas, I got given a book, Trivia for the Toilet. While I had an opportunity to read it today, I noticed a piece which claims Shakespeare wrote the Bible. All information given is from the book (which is great, by the way)

The King James Version was published in 1611. Shakespeare was 46 at the time. If you have a copy handy, take a look at Psalm 46. The 46th word in should be 'shake'. The 46th last word should be 'spear'.

Coincidence, or deliberate? What do you reckon?
 
Scarlet Fever said:
For last Christmas, I got given a book, Trivia for the Toilet. While I had an opportunity to read it today, I noticed a piece which claims Shakespeare wrote the Bible. All information given is from the book (which is great, by the way)

The King James Version was published in 1611. Shakespeare was 46 at the time. If you have a copy handy, take a look at Psalm 46. The 46th word in should be 'shake'. The 46th last word should be 'spear'.

Coincidence, or deliberate? What do you reckon?
Click to expand...
Me thinks coincidence is much more likely :cool:

FJ
 
You should make a film called 46 where everything is tied to the number 46 and it makes the main character go insane. :D
 
See, that's what's wrong with those trivia loo books; they have something really interesting and most of the time, have no sources for you to go look stuff up! At least, that's my experience with the trivia books.

But I think it's a coincidence. People like to look for those. Just like how there were 911 days between 9/11 and the Madrid tube bombing.
CONSPIRACY!!111!`!~!!~!
*shrug*
 
From Answers.com:

Some have claimed that the playwright William Shakespeare was involved in the translation, pointing to Psalms 46 as proof, where, counting 46 words from the beginning, one comes upon the word "shake", and counting 46 words backwards from the end, one comes upon the word "spear". Additionally, Shakespeare was 46 years of age at the time of the translating. Most scholars dismiss claims of Shakespeare's involvement in translating the King James Version, and do not accept this example as evidence of his involvement. Notably, the Geneva Bible and several other earlier translations contained the same coincidence, despite several of them being published before or just shortly after Shakespeare's birth.
Click to expand...

So no, I don't think so.
 
If you add up the letters in "Shakespeare" (11), it equals the short version of the year (also 11)........AND "King James" (9), Verse 4+6 (10), and Shakespeare (11), well that proves the point.
Coincidence, I don't think so :D
 
Well, since the Bible was originally written in Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew I'd say an english translation which happens to have to words "shake" and "spear" in it means absolutely ... well, you get the point.

Do people really believe this fodder?
 
QuarterSwede said:
Well, since the Bible was originally written in Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew I'd say an english translation which happens to have to words "shake" and "spear" in it means absolutely ... well, you get the point.

Do people really believe this fodder?
Click to expand...
But this means that the number "encoded" in Shakespeare (11) and Jesus Christ (11) are not the same :eek:
I actually have a friend who takes Bible codes very seriously.
On a lighter note, check out Austin Kleon's de-markup poems, aka, "newspaper blackout poems".
http://www.austinkleon.com/?cat=31
 
Dr.Gargoyle said:
The question should rather be whether Shakespeare wrote what he is accredited to have written.
Click to expand...

This question will be debated until the end of time. Nobody will ever produce a definitive answer, but it appears that the Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare corner currently has the upper-hand in the debate. The alternative playwright theorists have only vague circumstantial evidence for support.
 
IJ Reilly said:
This question will be debated until the end of time. Nobody will ever produce a definitive answer, but it appears that the Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare corner currently has the upper-hand in the debate. The alternative playwright theorists have only vague circumstantial evidence for support.
Click to expand...
Well, I think it is a bit odd for a "commoner" from a small village in England at that time to have seemingly deep knowledge of the danish court and rather small castle, especially since Shakespeare never went to Denmark.
But yeah you are correct, this question will most likely never be answered.
Just as the question of how much of Einsteins work was due to Albert and how much was Milevas. Albert Einstein didn't produce one good article after his divorce with Mileva.
 
Dr.Gargoyle said:
Well, I think it is a bit odd for a "commoner" from a small village in England at that time to have seemingly deep knowledge of the danish court and rather small castle, especially since Shakespeare never went to Denmark.
Click to expand...

Well, he didn't need to have deep knowledge -- he was a fiction writer and like all good fiction writers, he made up believable stuff. In any event, as I said vague circumstantial evidence is all the alternative playwright theorists have going for them. Just enough to keep it interesting, but not anywhere close to enough to make a truly compelling case for anyone but Shakespeare as the writer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back