I was raised as a Latter Day Saint - jack-style. Every year we went through the old and new testaments, although in an abridged fashion. I subsequently went to U.C. Berkeley (not in English) and 20 years later my niece graduated from there in English . Much to my amazement, even having gone to a Quaker k-12, she had never read and was unfamiliar with the bible. This is astounding. How can one understand the last 2000+ years of western history, literature, and philosophy without at least a passing familiarity with the basic way people structured their consciousness during that time?
I've sat in reading groups where so far as I can tell no one would have noticed biblical allusions extremely central to the meaning of the text had I not pointed them out. Essential background for reading the great works of the past and many new ones as well.
I have also sat in bible study groups and I was shocked at how everyone rocked with a different version and the versions were simply not compatible. I remember pointing out in Paul something about Moses and having been raised on the King James Bible people looked at me in amazement that I could figure that out.
Elizabeth, I really like " . . . structured their consciousness . . . " as a frame of reference, and, of course, I'm in agreement with your conclusion.
Some time back it struck me that being raised in a church (Presbyterian) that used the KJV meant that I had absorbed early modern English as more or less a second dialect or verbal register from earliest childhood. This should have been obvious to me as an early modern literature specialist, but I also realized that I had taken this aspect of my acculturation for granted. I further recognized that it made things much easier for me when I started reading Shakespeare, Spenser, et al. in my teens.
I was raised Congregational and I'm pretty sure we had the KJB, although I had my own Good News Bible at home (which got me into family history with those enormous lists of who begat whom!).
I spotted Biblical elements in Brontë novels growing up that other people didn't. I don't think many people realise these days that *Jane Eyre* is based on the structure of the Bible, even to the point that its final line is the final line of Revelations! And Whitcross, where she goes after fleeing Mr Rochester, is a reference to Whitsun. But, after all, the Brontës' father was a vicar. Intriguingly, the post-1813 pre-printed parish registers were published by a company called Eyre...
There's definitely a lot of overt religious references / imagery in Jane Eyre. Interestingly, Jane Austen, born a generation earlier, was also a clergyman's daughter yet there is not much religious imagery in her novels.
Yes, very true, there isn't in Jane Austen. I wonder why that is. But I can't see Austen writing a line like "Satan rejected my soul"! Although she's all about piercing them.
I’m Catholic and while we do not use the KJB it is still common enough in religious circles (and even more when I was a child) that I also agree with this. Even singing traditional hymns helps with this familiarity. I think it makes a big difference.
I grew up Catholic, and I'm of enough age to have been steeped in the KJV, before prosaic vernacular took over, and I lament the loss of poetry in liturgy.
On a Shakespearean side note, Angus Bowmer, founder of the Oregon Shakespeare Festival, was reputed to have said of the actors he sought: he preferred Texans, for their comfortable relationship with metaphor, and Catholics for theirs with ritual.
Raised on the KJV Bible in the LDS faith, I concur that the language comes naturally like a second language, although I had never considered framing it that way before reading this discussion. I am reminded of the time when my then 8-year-old son asked me to explain the grammatical difference between "thee" and "thou" because they both mean "you." It was the first time in my life that I had been forced to think about the difference and then explain that "thou" is used as a subject and "thee" as an object, i.e. "Thou art kind" vs. "He has shown kindness to thee." Although we are also raising him in the LDS faith, this same son prefers to read from the KJV Bible, the NIV, and an English translation of the Quran.
As a former LDS guy who did my undergraduate at BYU, I 100% concur. To this day phrases and grammatical structures from the KJV shape how I speak and understand the world. I’ll read novels that mix up their thees and thous and it boggles my mind as someone raised in that language.
Oops....looks like I am the only one who initially didn't understand the references LDS and KJV in your email today. I had to do a little research to the original article you were referencing to get an understanding. I was going to point this out and how it would have been helpful in your email and not I am a little embarrassed. Thanks for all your enlighting and entertaining posts.
Growing up through the 80s the KJV was the only version of the Bible I came across. Modern translations may be more accurate (I'm not a Hebrew or Greek scholar so I can't comment) but they lack the beautiful poetry of the KJV. The modern translations don't understand the you vs thee/thou distinction in early modern English. How different it is to understand in prayers that by addressing God as Thou or Thee it is the 2nd person singular, a form of address used for people one was intimate with, You was a formal address. Modern translations lose so much nuance, as well as beauty.
I was raised as a Latter Day Saint - jack-style. Every year we went through the old and new testaments, although in an abridged fashion. I subsequently went to U.C. Berkeley (not in English) and 20 years later my niece graduated from there in English . Much to my amazement, even having gone to a Quaker k-12, she had never read and was unfamiliar with the bible. This is astounding. How can one understand the last 2000+ years of western history, literature, and philosophy without at least a passing familiarity with the basic way people structured their consciousness during that time?
I've sat in reading groups where so far as I can tell no one would have noticed biblical allusions extremely central to the meaning of the text had I not pointed them out. Essential background for reading the great works of the past and many new ones as well.
I have also sat in bible study groups and I was shocked at how everyone rocked with a different version and the versions were simply not compatible. I remember pointing out in Paul something about Moses and having been raised on the King James Bible people looked at me in amazement that I could figure that out.
Elizabeth, I really like " . . . structured their consciousness . . . " as a frame of reference, and, of course, I'm in agreement with your conclusion.
Some time back it struck me that being raised in a church (Presbyterian) that used the KJV meant that I had absorbed early modern English as more or less a second dialect or verbal register from earliest childhood. This should have been obvious to me as an early modern literature specialist, but I also realized that I had taken this aspect of my acculturation for granted. I further recognized that it made things much easier for me when I started reading Shakespeare, Spenser, et al. in my teens.
I was raised Congregational and I'm pretty sure we had the KJB, although I had my own Good News Bible at home (which got me into family history with those enormous lists of who begat whom!).
I spotted Biblical elements in Brontë novels growing up that other people didn't. I don't think many people realise these days that *Jane Eyre* is based on the structure of the Bible, even to the point that its final line is the final line of Revelations! And Whitcross, where she goes after fleeing Mr Rochester, is a reference to Whitsun. But, after all, the Brontës' father was a vicar. Intriguingly, the post-1813 pre-printed parish registers were published by a company called Eyre...
There's definitely a lot of overt religious references / imagery in Jane Eyre. Interestingly, Jane Austen, born a generation earlier, was also a clergyman's daughter yet there is not much religious imagery in her novels.
Yes, very true, there isn't in Jane Austen. I wonder why that is. But I can't see Austen writing a line like "Satan rejected my soul"! Although she's all about piercing them.
Well, I look ridiculous thinking that * and * would put Jane Eyre into italics. Alas, no they have not.
I’m Catholic and while we do not use the KJB it is still common enough in religious circles (and even more when I was a child) that I also agree with this. Even singing traditional hymns helps with this familiarity. I think it makes a big difference.
I grew up Catholic, and I'm of enough age to have been steeped in the KJV, before prosaic vernacular took over, and I lament the loss of poetry in liturgy.
On a Shakespearean side note, Angus Bowmer, founder of the Oregon Shakespeare Festival, was reputed to have said of the actors he sought: he preferred Texans, for their comfortable relationship with metaphor, and Catholics for theirs with ritual.
Raised on the KJV Bible in the LDS faith, I concur that the language comes naturally like a second language, although I had never considered framing it that way before reading this discussion. I am reminded of the time when my then 8-year-old son asked me to explain the grammatical difference between "thee" and "thou" because they both mean "you." It was the first time in my life that I had been forced to think about the difference and then explain that "thou" is used as a subject and "thee" as an object, i.e. "Thou art kind" vs. "He has shown kindness to thee." Although we are also raising him in the LDS faith, this same son prefers to read from the KJV Bible, the NIV, and an English translation of the Quran.
As a former LDS guy who did my undergraduate at BYU, I 100% concur. To this day phrases and grammatical structures from the KJV shape how I speak and understand the world. I’ll read novels that mix up their thees and thous and it boggles my mind as someone raised in that language.
Oops....looks like I am the only one who initially didn't understand the references LDS and KJV in your email today. I had to do a little research to the original article you were referencing to get an understanding. I was going to point this out and how it would have been helpful in your email and not I am a little embarrassed. Thanks for all your enlighting and entertaining posts.
Nothing to be embarrassed about. I’ve never seen those TLAs before, but figured them out reading the comments. Should’ve been spelt out.
Thanks for your comment. The comments was where I was able to figure out what they meant also. Happy Easter.
Growing up through the 80s the KJV was the only version of the Bible I came across. Modern translations may be more accurate (I'm not a Hebrew or Greek scholar so I can't comment) but they lack the beautiful poetry of the KJV. The modern translations don't understand the you vs thee/thou distinction in early modern English. How different it is to understand in prayers that by addressing God as Thou or Thee it is the 2nd person singular, a form of address used for people one was intimate with, You was a formal address. Modern translations lose so much nuance, as well as beauty.