/lit/ - Literature

>>16268810
The only good female author wrote in english.

>>16268810
KJV is a translation. Only filthy plebs read it.

>>16268863
>reading in Hebrew
I’ll pass

>English translation of an ancient semitic/roman book
>Anglo lit

>>16268810
King James Bible isn't by anglos, retard. It's a translation.

>>16268882
>>16268893
>translations cannot be literature in themself
Brainlet. The King James Bible invented English as we know it. It is also a far more central to the English canon than the original is to the Greek canon. Read The Shadow Of A Great Rock: A Literary Appreciation of the King James Bible and stop being such a brainlet

>>16268903
What the fuck are you talking about? The Bible falls into the Western Canon, the only people who give a shit about English canon are the English you fucking mongoloid.

>>16268857
Because Chaucer exists

>>16268857
Danielle Steel?

>>16268810
No one cares you fucking faggot everyone can tell all the anti-anglo posters are simply coping hard that their country is a shithole with no cultural or intellecual merit

>>16268857
Mary Shelley?

>>16268916
We’re not talking about the western canon you brain-dead retard we’re talking about the English canon. While the Bible in general is a part of the western canon in general, the King James Bible specifically is a part of the English canon specifically.
Why are you on a literature board if reading a simple 4chan thread is so difficult for you?

>>16268893
>It's a translation
written by anglos

>>16268903
Imagine being this much of a fucking idiot. KJV was just a copy-paste of Tyndale's translation.

>>16268933
>Why are you on a literature board of reading a simple 4chan thread is so difficult for you?

Ironic how badly you fucked that simple sentence up while trying to sound like a pretentious asspie.

>specifically is a part of the English canon specifically.

Bro, nobody could give less than a rats dicklet about the English canon, fuck off with that piss-ant peasantry.

>>16268937
Oh, so English literature has more to offer than the King James Bible, Shakespeare, Bunyan, Milton, and Blake? Do tell

>>16268944
You're fucking delusional. The Bible was written in Hebrew and Koine Greek.

>>16268945
Translations of Les Miserables are now English novels? Awesome.

>>16268952
Chaucer, you goddamn spermburper. KJV is just a translation (and an inferior one).

>>16268960
The King James Bible was not written in Hebrew LMAO

>>16268903
>Read The Shadow Of A Great Rock: A Literary Appreciation of the King James Bible and stop being such a brainlet
Start thinking for yourself one day and fuck off with your pseud takes

>>16268963
Yes. Are you one of those retards that thinks perfect 1:1 translations are possible? Translations are creative works in and of themselves.

>>16268949
Please compare the King James to the Tyndale in more depth. Specifically, I’m interested in what the King James took for the Tyndale versions of Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, or Malachi.
Just any comparison between any Tyndale verse in those books and the King James equivalent will do

>>16268810
The influence the King James Bible has on English literature is immense, but it is not an Anglo work.

>>16268978
So you're saying that because someone translated the work, that means it is wholly theirs because there is not a 1:1 translation?

So what you're saying is, the English language is the ultimate language of plagiarism? Okay, I understand now.

>>16268981
>work done by Anglos
>but not an Anglo work

>>16268857
Austen?

>>16268963
If you said “Les Miserables is a book in English” you’d be an idiot. If you said “Wilbour‘s translation of Les Miserables is a book in English” you’d be correct
If you said “The Bible is a great work of English literature” you’d be wrong, if you said “The King James Bible is a great work of English literature” you’d be correct.
Now are you getting it?

>>16268983
>so you're saying that because [strawman] that means it is [strawman]?
>so what you're saying is [strawman]? Okay, I understand now.

>>16268983
>the English language is the ultimate language of plagiarism
I’m not sure where you’re getting that. Seems you made that up yourself. Who said anything about plagiarism?

>>16268988
No, because the basis of your argument is self-refuting by the fact that they do not originate from the English language.

You've never had a higher education than middle school, have you?

>>16268992
Hahaha based, I have no idea what that faggot is talking about

>>16268992
Guess you don't know what a strawman is. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

>>16268937
>anti-anglo posters are coping
>says the cope-poster

lmao'ing

>>16268997
Here is a picture of two books. One is a Bible in Hebrew (original language) the other is a Bible in English (English language). See? Now check this out

>>16269015
On the spines of the books, the English Bible is called “King James Version,” but the Hebrew is called “Biblia Hebraica” with no mention of King James at all!
This is because the King James Bible is a work of English literature, not Hebrew

>>16269015
>>16269018
That doesn't make The King James bible anglo.

>>16268997
A bunch of Semitic guys wearing funny hats in 1200-165 BC didn't sit down and decide to write the KING JAMES Bible.
This really isn't that hard to understand. The only way you could fuck this up is if you believed that translation isn't a creative endeavor.

>>16269005
>¯\_(ツ)_/¯

>>16269020
No. See? look. Here is the beginning of the King James Bible, see how it is written in English and not Hebrew? This is because it’s a work of English literature.

>that one retard in this thread that thinks the KJV was written by a bunch of jews in 500 BC
is non-anglo education really that bad?

>>16269023
Well I can't say I'm too mad at you, the British have been stealing culture from around the world for centuries.

>>16268979
The New Testament in the King James Version is 83% Tyndale's words, and the Old Testament 76%.

>>16269018
The Bible wasn't written in English, dumbfuck.

>>16268863
This. Why would anyone read the Bible in a translation that isn't
in their native language or one they're studying to be a scholar in?

>>16269029
>It's a work of English literature

No, it's a work of hebrew/Greek literature translated into English. Take it up with the Pope if you want to disagree.

>>16269045
>the KJV wasn't written English
lmao are you fucking blind?

>>16269029
>reading translations
ngmi

>>16269035
>Well I can't say I'm too mad at you, the British have been stealing culture from around the world for centuries.

>>16269051
Apparently you are since he never said the "King James Version", retard.

>>16269051
KJV is just a translation, turbopleb.

>>16269059
>This is because the King James Bible is a work of English literature, not Hebrew
You ARE blind it seems

>>16269054
>

>>16269039
Okay, I was too subtle.
The Tyndale translation of the Old Testament consists only of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and Jonah. Those books I listed in the last post were all the books Tyndale didn’t translate. It is literally impossible for 76% of the King James Old Testament to be made up of Tyndale’s words. Even if the King James translators took the entirety of Tyndales work and just translated the rest of the Old Testament, it would still be mostly original

>>16269065
He said
>The Bible wasn't written in English, dumbfuck.

So who the fuck are you quoting?

>>16269060
>just a translation
>most influential work of literature ever conceived
written in English too

>>16269071
Read the whole conversation chucklefuck

>>16269071
I'm quoting the guy he's misquoting

>>16269073
It was influential even before English existed as a language.

>>16269080
Never claimed otherwise

>>16269070
You are misinformed.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1179/ref_1998_3_1_004

>>16269080
That is an excellent point anon. English as we know it didn’t truly come into existence until after the King James Bible, that great work of English literature, was written

>>16269076
No, i'm reading what he specifically said. Tell me where he, not you, HE, said "The King James Version"? Here, I'll even post a screencap. Is it in here somewhere? Maybe underneath the png? Please, I'm dying to know where HE, specifically HIM, said the King James Version. Where?

>>16269089
Read the whole conversation chucklefuck

>>16269088
You are literally retarded.

>>16269097
What makes you say that anon?

>>16269089
so close, yet so far

>>16268867
>not being pleb
>i'll pass lol

>>16269157
Shalom

Everyone ITT and especially OP should be shot

>>16269164
and a shalom to you, anon.

>>16268810
Friar Bungay is literally one of the top ten greatest plays and you snub him?

>>16268810
>Shakespeare instead of Marlowe

If you care about English literature, you should read the King James Bible. It possess a unique style (aside from Tyndale of course) that profoundly influenced later English literature that you will not find in the original Hebrew/ Greek or in translations into other languages or even modern English bible translations.