Originally posted By knitwitted on December 7, 2012
Per Naseeb Shaheen Biblical References in Shakespeare’s Plays (1999, 2011) pp. 38-39:
“The vast majority of Shakespeare’s biblical references cannot be traced to any one version, since the many Tudor Bibles are often too similar to be differentiated. But of the more than 1,040 biblical references that are listed in this volume (excluding some 120 references to the Psalms…), there are approximately 80 instances in which Shakespeare is closer to one version, or to several related versions, than to others.
“Shakespeare’s references are often closer to the Geneva Bible than to any other version…. There are approximately thirty passages in the thirty-eight plays in this volume in which Shakespeare clearly refers to the Geneva Bible, besides several other passages in which he seems closer to that version than to others.”
Ten passages in which Shakespeare clearly refers to the Geneva Bible:
| 1. Twelfth Night 2.5.188 | Joshua 10.24 |
| 2. As You Like It 1.1.37-38 | Luke 15.15-16 |
| 3. Richard II 1.1.174-75 | Jeremiah 13.23 |
| 4. 2 Henry IV 2.4.57-59 | Romans 15. 1 |
| 5. Hamlet 3.3.80 | Ezekiel 16.49 |
| 6. The Two Noble Kinsmen 1.1.158-59 | Ezekiel 16.49 |
| 7. Julius Caesar 4.3.86 | Romans 15.1 |
| 8. Othello 2.3.296-97 | Ephesians 4.27 |
| 9. Othello 4.2.59-61 | Proverbs 5.15-18 |
| 10. Cymbeline 3.3.91-92 | Joshua 10.24 |
(39-40)
Other passages in which Shakespeare seems closer to the Geneva Bible:
| 11. Merchant of Venice 4.1.376-77 | Ecclus. 34.23 |
| 12. All’s Well That Ends Well 4.5.42-43 | Ephesians 6.12 |
| 13. 1 Henry IV 4.2.34-35 | Luke 15.15-16 |
| 14. 1 Henry VI 2.1.26 | II Samuel 22.2-3 Genevan Psalms 31.3, 18.2 |
| 15. 2 Henry IV 4.2.27 | Romans 10.2 |
| 16. Henry V 4.7.61-62 | Judith 9.7 |
| 17. Timon of Athens 4.3.173 | Luke 6.26 |
| 18. Hamlet 5.2.219-20 | Matthew 10.29 |
| 19. Hamlet 3.1.77-79 | Job 10.21-22, 16.22, 7.9-10 |
| 20. Hamlet 5.1.229-30 | I Cor. 15.52 I Thess. 4.16 |
| 21. Coriolanus 5.4.23-24 | Isaiah 57.15, 66.1 |
| 22. Coriolanus 5.4.49-50 | Daniel 3.5,7 |
| 23. Othello 5.2.348 | Tomson N.T. bound with Geneva O.T. (1587) — NOT RELEVANT as de Vere Bible O.T. (1568) |
| 24. King Lear 3.4.102-3 | Hebrews 2.6 |
| 25. Titus Andronicus 4.2.98 | Acts 23.3 Matthew 23.27 |
| 26. The Winter’s Tale 4.4.444-46 | Ecclus. 42.16 |
| 27. The Winter’s Tale 4.4.478 | Jeremiah 6.22 |
| 28. Cymbeline 4.2.260-61 | I Corinthians 3.8 |
| 29. Cymbeline 5.4.182-84 | Job 16.22 |
| 30. The Winter’s Tale 4.4.721-22 (See Shaheen, p. 42) | Genesis 25.27 |
(40)
Of the above thirty Shakespearean passages, it should be noted number 23 is not relevant to the 1568 printing of the O.T. of the de Vere Bible. Of the remaining 29 passages, only two (nos. 5 & 6 above) referenced at Ezekiel 16.49 are marked in the de Vere Bible.
p. 42: “Finally, there are many passages throughout Shakespeare’s plays in which Shakespeare is least like the Geneva Bible and closer to the other versions of his day.” Shaheen then proceeds to list several examples.
p. 44: “[A]lthough the Geneva Bible may have been the version that Shakespeare knew best and which he seems to refer to most often, the influence of other versions is clearly evident, and no one version can be called ‘Shakespeare’s Bible.’”
It must be concluded the marked passages in the de Vere Bible were not used as a workbook to write the Shakespeare plays, but rather for de Vere’s personal benefit.
Based on Dr. Stritmatter’s interpretation of the marked passages and his control data sets of other writers’ usage of the Bible in their works (i.e. Bacon, Spenser, Marlowe, as well as Montaigne and Rabelais), I suggest the overlap between the marked passages in the de Vere Bible and their occurrence in the Shakespeare canon is remarkably significant.
I propose a look into other annotated Bibles of the same time period would greatly further define the remarkability of such an overlap.
Accordingly, Dr. Stritmatter’s assessment of his own findings per the Introduction to his dissertation should be found accurate: (p.11) the Bible supplies “researchers with a revealing look into the devotional practices which sustained the annotator’s creative life and bring to bear for the first time a cornucopia of hitherto unnoticed confirmatory evidence supporting the Oxfordian thesis.” (p.12) “Quantitative arguments play a role, but only one role, in the arguments which follow.”
I further suggest previous criticisms of Dr. Stritmatter’s research have been in error as such criticisms were based upon the assumption the de Vere Bible was a template for the writing of the Shakespeare plays and that a near 100% correlation between the two works would be expected if this was indeed “Shakespeare’s Bible”.
Critics also incorrectly assumed the Geneva Bible was the only Bible Shakespeare referred to (Shakespeare also referred to the Bishops, Great Bible, Tomson N.T.). These posted internet criticisms, which have neither been peer-reviewed nor written from an independent view-point, have indeed misrepresented the purpose of Dr. Stritmatter’s research and should be ignored by researchers. Dr. Stritmatter’s research stands as a valuable contribution to the Oxfordian theory.
About the author
Independent Researcher
Comments
10 Responses to “Assessment of Edward de Vere’s Genevan Bible”
- richard waugaman says:
December 8, 2012 at 4:53 pm
Well said! The irrational criticisms of Roger’s findings reveal the vacuousness of the orthodox mind. This mind has decided a priori that any challenge to the traditional myth must be wrong. Ergo, all that is left is to poke holes in evidence that supports de Vere’s authorship. In this case, defenders of tradition have merely poked a finger in their own blind eye.
Log in to Reply
- Roger Stritmatter says:
December 8, 2012 at 8:46 pm
This is a public invitation to Tom Reedy, Tom Veal, David Kathman, or anyone else, who would like to guest author a blog post contesting Knitwitted’s conclusions.
I’m particularly interested if there is anyone out there who is willing to candidly defend the premise that this can’t be Shakespeare’s Bible because the level of congruence between the marked passages and Shakespeare’s use of the Bible is insufficiently comprehensive (i.e., the argument that a 20-40% overlap (depending on how you calculate) is coincidental and that we should expect something close to a 100% match before we take the evidence seriously). Now’s your big chance to explain it to the world, guys. Don’t make me hold my breath.
The difference between this blog and, for example David Kathman’s argument here: http://shakespeareauthorship.com/ox5.html is that there will be discussion.
Log in to Reply
- mouse says:
December 8, 2012 at 10:04 pm
Brilliant article, Knit. You’ve taken the bull by the horns and led it home, so to speak. You should write more and publish what you write. Your assessment of De Vere’s Bible is impeccable; so is your style.
Log in to Reply
- knitwitted says:
December 9, 2012 at 9:44 pm
Many thank yous Dr. Richard! Your assessment of the opposition is absolutely correct… Special thanks and hugs to mouse! You’re both very kind And Doc, if Tom Veal’s recent comments on his blog are any indication, any guest rebuttals from that group will be in need of some serious liposuction.
Thanks again for all your hard work!!
Log in to Reply
- knitwitted says:
January 22, 2013 at 1:43 pm
Hi Roger,
I just wanted to add the following statements from others who apparently assume Oxford’s Bible was used as his workbook:
(1) John Mucci — “For example, if de Vere had penned in the margin of Revelation 14:13, “Would go well in acte 1, Hamlet”…” [http://www.jmucci.com/ER/reviews/thesis.htm]
(2) Supreme Court Justice Stevens’ disappointment that the “bed trick” in Shakespeare [i.e. Genesis 29.23] wasn’t underlined in Oxford’s Bible. [Shapiro, *Contested Will*, p. 215 per *Wall Street Journal* 18 Apr 2009]
(3) Bob Grumman — “[T]here’s an overlap between passages Oxford (probably) marked in a Bible and Biblical passage in Shakespeare’s play, but many passages marked in the Bible not in Shakespeare, and many Biblical passages in Shakespeare not marked in the Bible.” [http://skepticalhumanities.com/2011/11/10/spot-the-looney-a-lot-of-bad-evidencegood-evidence/#comment-13242; comment 20 Jan 2013]
Log in to Reply
- knitwitted says:
May 13, 2013 at 11:08 pm
Hi Doc,
Could you please write a blog post regarding the identified Bible theme “the value of secret works (Matt. 6.1-4)? There seems to be a lot of confusion regarding what that theme would mean to the annotator.
Matt. 6.1 “Take hede that ye give not your almes before men, to be sene of them, or els ye shal have no rewarde of your father which is in heaven.”
Ecclesiasticus 23.19 “… the eyes of the Lord are ten thousand times brighter then the sunne, beholding all ye the waies of men” i.e. God sees all.
How do these marked passages equate to meaning de Vere left secret codes in the plays and/or used a hyphen in someone else’s name to mean that’s his pseudonym? And how did everybody “in the know” (i.e. Meres, etc.) know he was writing secret works to God?
What’s the purpose of secret works to God if the guy purposely spilled the beans? If God sees all, wouldn’t God see those secret codes?
Why promote theories which run counter to any theme in the Bible?
I hope you’ll consider clearing this up. I’m seeing this as a major problem in terms of your research on the Bible. It seems to me, either the de Vere Bible and its themes as identified by you stands in its entirety on its own merit or it shouldn’t be used at all as proof of his authorship. Hopefully, I’ve misunderstood and it is other Oxfordians who are promoting such theories, and not you.
Best wishes,
Libby
Log in to Reply
- PaulAFried says:
January 12, 2014 at 4:07 pm
Robert, regarding this page,
https://shake-speares-bible.com/2012/12/07/assessment-of-edward-de-vere%E2%80%99s-genevan-bible/
there may be a typo:
When you introduce the two tables from “Naseeb Shaheen *Biblical References in Shakespeare’s Plays,*” you introduce the first table as relating to the Geneva translation, and then the second (which you introduce as in contrast to the first) you also introduce as relating to Geneva.
Yet when I look up the Hamlet / Ezekiel reference in the first table, it’s the Douay-Rheims 1899 American edition that contains “fullness of bread,” not the Geneva. The older Douay-Rheims of Shakespeare’s time may differ, but my hunch is that you intended to introduce the first table as relating to Douay-Rheims, and the second to Geneva.
Please do correct me if I’m wrong on this. And thanks for your intriguing work. – PF
Log in to Reply
- PaulAFried says:
January 12, 2014 at 4:23 pm
knitwitted/Libby:
I understand the logic of your May 2013 comment regarding the contrast between things truly done in secret (and secret forever, known only to God), and leaving a trail, or having some things known to people “in the know.”
But consider that, even today, people practice selective literalism when it comes to interpreting (or misinterpreting) the bible: Some are harsh about Old Testament sexual prohibitions, but seem to ignore admonitions of Jesus to care for the poor, etc.
Similarly, Shakespeare has multiple references to a resurrection theme (consider the faked death and resurrection in “Much Ado,” and the similar plot gone awry in “Romeo and Juliet”).
For these reasons, I think it’s very possible that, if the de Vere theory is correct, he may have seen his actions as only loosely analogous to the scriptural “deeds done in secret” rather than strictly adhering to it.
– PF
Log in to Reply
- PaulAFried says:
January 12, 2014 at 4:26 pm
[p.s. My point about resurrection themes is that, in the Sh. plays, they are not literally deaths and resurrections, but only loosely analogous. They are theatrical illusions (one gone awry).]
Log in to Reply
- Roger Stritmatter says:
January 12, 2014 at 6:08 pm
Hi Paul,
The Geneva translation reads “bread” (“panis” in the Vulgate); all other English translations, according to Naseeb Shaheen and other authorities, read “meat.” I have not personally reviewed the 1582 Douay-Rheims to verify its wording and it is possible that it does also read “bread.” Like Knitwitted, I have followed Shaheen’s testimony that the Genvevan is the only English translation of the day which reads “bread.” I’ll have to look into this and I appreciate your raising the point. I hope you have a chance to spend further time reading on the site.
Best Regards,
Roger
Doc Stritmatter
Log in to Reply
Leave a Reply