Friday, January 9, 2009

Here's the thing: The (re)play's the thing


John Freshwater, the 8th grade science teacher once fired for keeping a Bible on his classroom desk, is back at it.

(Freshwater: repeat)

What is annoyingly missing in news accounts (the ones I have seen, anyway) is an identification of exactly what version (translation or paraphrase) of the Bible he puts on his desk. (News reporters, like the public in general, are notoriously Bible-illiterate.) I would presume that it is the King James Version, or something close, but I could be wrong. If it is a more current English translation, like Today's New International Version, which I consider the best, the most conservative Christian groups might have pause.

Now I happen to think that two early 1600s English classics should be taught in every public high school, say over the course of a year: The Plays of Shakespeare (technically speaking, they were not collected into a single work at the time, but pretend that they were), and the (Protestant, King James) Bible. Everyone should have a cultural knowledge of this stuff.

Now I do part ways in one sense. I think that this combined Shakespeare, Bible course could be taught just as well with modern versions as the base texts instead of their 1600s precedents (as long as the old versions are around for comparison). Some modern yet poetic Plays for Shakespeare, and at least the TNIV for the Bible. I'm beginning, though, to become rather partial to The Message, even though it is on the paraphrase side of the translation/paraphrase "divide". I mean, it's pretty bitchin', dude. I could, like, totally teach a Bible course like this.

8 comments:

  1. AnonymousJanuary 9, 2009 at 4:04 PM

    Oh I am afraid I'm going to disagree here. I saw the other day that someone had 'translated' Milton's Paradise Lost into modern English. It's not the same book when you do that, and the same goes for Shakespeare too. The message of the Bible maybe in the story but in the others the grandeur, the majesty, a great part of the achievement of human imagination is in the language. Keep the story but lose the language and all you have is the skeleton of the book. Sorry to disagree but it's a subject I feel quite strongly about.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Philip ThriftJanuary 9, 2009 at 4:24 PM

    I'm willing to concede that for Shakespeare — it could be like colorizing B&W classic movies, I can see that — but not quite for the King James Bible. They were both written in Early Modern English, but Shakespeare is original and KJB was a translation of ancient Hebrew/Greek, just as the current translations are. I don't have quite the affection for KJB as a work of English literature that even many atheists do.

    But then, I'm a bit of a "Phil"istine at heart. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Philip ThriftJanuary 9, 2009 at 10:39 PM

    I would still chose TNIV over KJB for my Bible class (though The Message toys with me), I wasn't sure about Shakespeare, as the above comment shows.

    But, spurred on by Paul's counterpoint, I did more research and found the modern "verse translation" from Full Measure Press (and hence updated the "yet poetic" link in the post). That could work.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Philip ThriftJanuary 11, 2009 at 12:02 PM

    More info about Kent Richmond, the author of the verse translations of Shakespeare plays, is at his Cal. State Univ. - Long Beach page. (Apparently he retired from CSULB in 2008 to work full time on Full Measure Press.)

    ReplyDelete
  5. Sam Stickle (mountvernon1805)January 22, 2009 at 8:07 PM

    The Bible that John Freshwater had on his desk was the "Living Bible."

    The woman who was assigned as a monitor to Freshwater’s classroom last spring recorded in her notes what version of Bible Freshwater had. She testified during the hearing on January 15. See:

    www.accountabilityinthemedia.com/2009/01/inside-john-freshwaters-classroom.html

    ReplyDelete
  6. Philip ThriftJanuary 22, 2009 at 11:10 PM

    Thanks. That makes some headway in answering that question, but it is still unresolved whether "Living Bible" (referred to by the witness) is The Living Bible or New Living Translation.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Sam Stickle (mountvernon1805)January 23, 2009 at 10:55 AM

    The Wikipedia article says that the New Living Bible was completed in 1996—John Freshwater has stated that, “I’ve had my Bible on my desk for 21 years”, so it must be the older version. I found what appears to be a picture of his Bible on his official website (at the top of the page):

    http://www.bibleonthedesk.com/pressreleases.php

    ReplyDelete
  8. Philip ThriftJanuary 23, 2009 at 11:17 AM

    That picture clinches it. I remember them well from the 70s with those green pillowy covers. (I think I had one.)

    But we all know they are "heresy"! [ref1] [ref2]

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)