Paul Adrian Fried / HAMLET'S BIBLE

Claudius at prayer (3.3) echoes (and parodies) Jesus’ agony in the garden, praying that “this cup” pass from him. —But Jesus ends with “thy will be done.” —The echo is ironic for Claudius: He knows what he must do to repent, but refuses to give up the throne and queen he acquired by killing his brother. —Unlike Jesus, Claudius ends, *My* will be done, not God’s. Hamlet has a chance to kill Claudius in this scene, but spares him. —This echoes the biblical David who twice spared King Saul (1 Sam 24 & 26). —Yet the echo is ironic: Whereas David spared Saul out of mercy and respect for the king as God’s anointed, Hamlet intends to catch Claudius later and kill him when he’s doing something unholy, thereby damning him. As others have noted, Hamlet here wants to play God. —Ålso ironic: Hamlet misinterprets Claudius’ effort to pray. Like the play in general, this scene reminds us that looks can be deceiving: a king at prayer and a prince sparing a life may both be prisoners of

Many scholars assume Hamlet in 4.4 praises Fortinbras, calling him a “delicate and tender prince.” But bible translations available to Shakespeare show otherwise. —In Luke 16:19 (Geneva, “The Rich Man and Lazarus”), the hell-bound rich man is described: “There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared well and delicately every day.” He is pampered and spoiled while neglecting the beggar Lazarus. —Deut 28:54-57 (Bishop’s bible) describes a “ delicate and tender ” man and woman who fail to follow Mosaic law, pamper themselves, neglect spouse and children, and who, if the city was under siege, would eat their own children: "the man (that is tender and exceeding delicate among you) [...] 56 Yea, and the woman that is so tender and delicate [..] —Proverbs 19:10 The Douay-Rheims uses a form of the word "Delicate" in Proverbs 19:10: " Delicacies are not seemly for a fool: nor for a servant to have rule over princes." The Cover

In Hamlet 5.2 (Q2), the prince tells Horatio, “Let be,” accepting the danger of the duel. Some may consider Hamlet’s “Let be” an allusion to the words Mary, mother of Jesus, speaks to the angel Gabriel, who tells her she will bear a son. And certainly, there is a strong thematic connection. But in both the Bishop’s (church) bible and the Geneva (home) #translation, Mary’s words are “be it unto me according to thy word” (Lk 1:38). Close, but no "let". Yet in Shakespeare’s (prefered) Geneva bible, when Jesus seeks to be baptized by John, at first, John protests, saying it should be Jesus baptizing *him.* Jesus replies, “Let be now: for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness” (Mt 3:15). Common theme: acceptance of divine will, of the great “I am who am” (another form of "be"). But it’s interesting to note that Shakespeare may have been alluding (yet again) to John the Baptist, who disapproved of King Herod Antipas’s marriage to his brother’s wife.

In Shakespeare’s Hamlet, when the prince advises the players against over-acting and says it “out-Herods Herod,” which Herod is he referring to? —Herod I who ordered the slaughter of male children in the gospel tale of the wise men and the birth of Jesus (Mt 2:16-18)? This makes sense, but is that all? —Or Herod Antipas, who said he’d give his stepdaughter (Salome, by tradition) anything she wished, up to half of his kingdom, after she danced pleasingly for him and his guests (Mk 6:21–29)? —(Or both?) Later, when the players are acting out The Murder of Gonzago, why does Hamlet say the murdered duke’s wife is named Baptista? Merely because an Italian Duke of Urbino was murdered by poison, and one of his historical predecessors had a wife named Baptista (a stretch)? Or is the common thread the fact that Herod Antipas granted Salome’s wish for the head of John the Baptist (to whom the name "Baptista" points), who condemned the marriage of Herod Antipas to his brother’s

In many editions of Shakespeare's Hamlet, when the prince gives advice to the actors and says they should avoid the kind of bad acting that "out-Herods Herod," footnotes often explain it by referring to the older Herod I, supposedly responsible for a "slaughter of innocents," a killing of male children at the time of the Nativity of Jesus—and also a biblical literary allusion to the slaughter of male infants at the time of the birth of Moses as related in Hebrew scriptures. But Herod I is not the only Herod editors could have chosen: They could have noted a later Herod, Herod Antipas. Why might this be a poor editorial decision, to mention only Herod I, and omit mention of Herod Antipas? Because as the Christian scriptures tell the tale (Mk 6:14-29, Mt 14:1-12), Herod Antipas divorced his first wife and married Herodias, the divorced wife of his brother. When his new stepdaughter danced for Herod Antipas and his guests, she danced so well that he offered he