In this comparative study, relativizers have been examined in two versions of the Bible: the King James Bible Version from 1611 and the New King James Bible Version from 1990. The hypothesis of this investigation was that, as the English language has undergone noticeable changes from the year 1611, the changes might also concern the usage of relativizers. Thus, the aim was to analyse how the use of relativizers has changed and try to find out reasons for these changes. To examine this, The Gospel According to Luke in both Bible versions was studied, because it is the longest of the 27 books of the New Testament. During this study, all the relativizers were sought out and counted. The results showed that in particular, there were remarkable discrepancies concerning the frequency of the relativizers who, which and that. In the King James Bible Version the relativizers which and that have a high frequency of occurrences, whereas the relativizer who does not appear as frequently. In the light of several examples, the usage of the relativizers was discussed and it has been found that the discrepancies depend on different factors. The most obvious difference in the usage of relativizers is that the relativizer which has both human and non-human antecedents in the King James Bible Version, whereas there is a clear distinction in the usage of who and which in the New King James Bible.

<p>ABSTRACT</p><p>Thou, Thee, Thy, Thine, Ye, You, Your, Yours: Second Person Pronouns in Two Bible Translations</p><p>In the King James Version from 1611 there are eight different forms of personal pronouns for second person: the singular forms thou, thee, thy, thine and the corresponding plural forms ye, you, your and yours. Because of linguistic changes in the English language the number of the second person pronouns has declined during the centuries. Accordingly, in the New King James Version from 1990 these eight earlier pronouns are represented by only three pronouns: you, your, yours. Therefore, the hypothesis of this study was that the disappearance of so many different pronoun forms might have caused some ambiguity. To examine this, The Gospel of Luke of both Bible versions was studied and all the second person pronouns were first classified according to their case and number (nominative/accusative/dative/genitive, singular/plural) and thereafter counted. The verses of the Gospel of Luke, where both one or several persons are addressed, were read and carefully studied. Furthermore, when necessary, interesting or relevant, comparisons were also made to two other translations: Gustav V´s Bible from 1917 and the Swedish Bible Version from 2000. The results of this study show that there are differences in the numbers of the examined pronouns. These discrepancies depend on several different factors which have been discussed. In addition, the investigation gives evidence of the fact that the references of pronouns are not always completely clear: several verses, which might be perceived erroneously, were found in the modern English Bible translation.</p>

ABSTRACT Thou, Thee, Thy, Thine, Ye, You, Your, Yours: Second Person Pronouns in Two Bible Translations In the King James Version from 1611 there are eight different forms of personal pronouns for second person: the singular forms thou, thee, thy, thine and the corresponding plural forms ye, you, your and yours. Because of linguistic changes in the English language the number of the second person pronouns has declined during the centuries. Accordingly, in the New King James Version from 1990 these eight earlier pronouns are represented by only three pronouns: you, your, yours. Therefore, the hypothesis of this study was that the disappearance of so many different pronoun forms might have caused some ambiguity. To examine this, The Gospel of Luke of both Bible versions was studied and all the second person pronouns were first classified according to their case and number (nominative/accusative/dative/genitive, singular/plural) and thereafter counted. The verses of the Gospel of Luke, where both one or several persons are addressed, were read and carefully studied. Furthermore, when necessary, interesting or relevant, comparisons were also made to two other translations: Gustav V´s Bible from 1917 and the Swedish Bible Version from 2000. The results of this study show that there are differences in the numbers of the examined pronouns. These discrepancies depend on several different factors which have been discussed. In addition, the investigation gives evidence of the fact that the references of pronouns are not always completely clear: several verses, which might be perceived erroneously, were found in the modern English Bible translation.

This thesis provides a revisionist account of the relationship between Latin biblical criticism, vernacular religious culture and Reformed doctrines of scriptural authority in the early modern period. It achieves this by studying episodes from the career of the English Hebraist Hugh Broughton (1549-1612). Current orthodoxy holds that Broughton's devotion to the tenets of Reformed scripturalism distinguished him from contemporary biblical humanists, whose more flexible attitudes to the Bible enabled them to produce cutting-edge scholarship. In challenging this consensus, this thesis focusses on three areas. The first is chronology. Recent work has presented chronology as divided between technical, philological practitioners, who drew from astronomy and humanism alike in their efforts to date the past, and scripturalists, who relied on the Bible alone. Using the chronological controversy between Broughton and the Oxonian John Rainolds, this thesis complicates this picture by arguing that both approaches to the discipline were equally derived from humanistic traditions, and that confessional, rather than intellectual or methodological, factors informed the most important decisions chronologers made. The second area is biblical criticism. There is still a broad assumption that Reformed beliefs about scripture were incompatible with the most advanced biblical scholarship. This thesis questions such assumptions by reconstructing Broughton's research into the Hebraic contexts of the New Testament. By demonstrating that it was possible to produce innovative and influential work without challenging and indeed, while endorsing the principles of Reformed scripturalism, this thesis disputes current teleological presumptions about the development of modern, historical biblical criticism. The third is the history of lay reading. Both chronology and biblical criticism have often been viewed as specialised pursuits, studied only by a Latin-reading elite and irrelevant to lay people. For Broughton and his followers, however, biblical scholarship and lay piety were inseparable. The thesis demonstrates this by piecing together Broughton's radical plans for a new English Bible, including his work with John Speed on biblical genealogy, and his revisions of the Geneva New Testament. Using numerous neglected manuscript sources, it gives an account of the sixteenth-century biblical translation that foregrounds the unexpected ways in which groundbreaking neo-Latin, continental biblical scholarship expanded scholars' concepts of what vernacular translation could achieve.

In 1963, M.H. Abrams suggested that the ultimate source of Wordsworth's poetry is the Bible, and, in particular, the New Testament. This thesis, however, demonstrates the importance of the Old Testament and offers the first extended analysis of Wordsworth's use of Old Testament rhetoric. It examines both his affectionate perceptions of the natural world, and the Biblical recollections that saturate his writing. The purpose is to align two critical discourses - on Scripture and topography - and in doing so, situate Wordsworth's sense of himself as a poet-prophet in both Britain and America. The four chapters are structured topographically (Dwelling, Vales, Mountains, Rivers), and organised around a phenomenological experience of lived space, as expressed in key poems. Close analysis of Wordsworth's poetic language from Descriptive Sketches to Yarrow Revisited reveals the influence of the Bible (and the recent analysis of sacred Hebrew poetry undertaken by Lowth), while the theories of Heidegger and Bachelard provide a conceptual approach to Wordsworth's investment in nature. The epilogue opens questions of Wordsworth's reception in America by exploring the awareness of cultural and physical geography and sense of Wordsworth's prophetic ministry amongst his heirs. The thesis concludes that Wordsworth's extensive recourse to scriptural language and the physical landscape strengthened his claim to be a Prophet of Nature. His poetry self-consciously adopted the universal 'language of men' - that of the King James Bible.