DRAFT: This module has unpublished changes.

Response Paper #2

            The King James and the New English Versions of the Bible vary more than they are similar.  The main difference that I noticed when reading both was that form is more important in the King James Version than it was in the New English Version.  The King James Version of the Bible seems to be more of a religious work of art, something to be cherished as sacred, as opposed to being something to be understood and learned from, as is the case with the New English Version.  The New English Version is more the narration of the word of God, while the King James Version is more archaic, not contemporary in its diction, punctuation, and other features of style.  The use of archaic language paints more of a portrait of art, with more of an aesthetic purpose in intent, as opposed to the New English Version.  For example, in Verse 10 of Chapter One in the King James Version, there is the use of the words “thee,’ and “thou,” while in the other Version “you” is used.  Here the tenor is created, in both Versions, but better understood in the second Version, as an intimate personal tenor, and convincing and persuasive in functional tenor (as far as it is possible for God to be convincing and persuasive).  The use of second person throughout both Versions creates this tenor. 

            In the King James Version there are different rhetorical devices; for example, there is the religious convention of the word LORD being capitalized.  This doesn’t appear in the other Version.  This rhetorical device supports the idea that form is more important in the King James Version; it more stresses the power and authority of God, appearing in, for example, Chapter 1 Verse 7 and Verse 24.  Another difference noted among both Versions is verb tense.  The main difference in verb tense is that the King James Version has a more archaic verb tense, while the New English Version has a more contemporary verb tense; for example, in Chapter 1 Verse 25, there is the difference in verb formation in the words “at nought” and “neglected.”  In this way diction varies on the graphological level; also, for example, in Chapter 2 Verse 7, there is the difference of diction, in the King James Version, with the phrasing “He layeth up sound wisdom for the righteous,” versus “He stores up effective counsel for the upright.”  There is the same meaning, in verbs and syntax, but there are different manners of forming the main verbs.  In the New English Version there is the substitution of more easily understood vocabulary.  Also there is the archaic use of future tense in the first Version, which is more contemporary in the second, for example, in Chapter 2 Verse 21, pertaining to the use of the words “shall” and “will.” 

            Another feature that differs between the two version is the use of subtitles in the New English Version.  The subtitles make it easier for the reader to understand what the following verses are about, because they summarize the narration.  This is a feature of the mode of discourse of this Version.  The mode of discourse is also defined in Chapter 1 Verse 5 of the New English Version with the use of the word “Let,” which creates a spoken style.  Throughout the King James Version there is more of a lack of address to the audience; therefor there is more of a formal, frozen and written style. 

            As for what I think of McGrath’s comments of the last paragraph of his article, I think that he has a right to his opinion that the King James Version of the Bible is a great written accomplishment, but I disagree with him.  I think that the point of the Bible is for people to read and understand the word of God, to communicate the ideas of God so that the religious can be faithful and live a pious life.  Therefore, form should be less important, and the communication and understanding of ideas more important.  

DRAFT: This module has unpublished changes.