Wycliffe's Bible

Wycliffe's Bible or Wycliffite Bibles ('WYC) are names given for a sequence of Middle English Bible translations believed to have been made under the direction or instigation of English theologian John Wycliffe of the University of Oxford. They represent the earliest known literal translations of the entire Bible into English (Middle English).[1] They appeared over a period from approximately 1382 to 1395.[2]

Wycliffe Bible
AbbreviationWYC
Complete Bible
published		1382
Online asWycliffe Bible at Wikisource
Derived fromLatin Vulgate
Translation typeFormal equivalence
Revision1388,[lower-alpha 1] 1395
Genesis 1:1–3
In þe bigynnyng God made of nouȝt heuene and erþe. Forsoþe þe erþe was idel and voide, and derknessis weren on the face of depþe; and the Spiryt of þe Lord was borun on the watris. And God seide, Liȝt be maad, and liȝt was maad.
John 3:16
For God louede so þe world, that he ȝaf his oon bigetun sone, þat ech man þat bileueþ in him perische not, but haue euerlastynge lijf.
The Bible in English
 Bible portal

As relatively few people could read unfamiliar Latin passages, and many could read Middle English more adequately, Wycliffe supported vernacular translations, saying "it helpeth Christian men to study the Gospel in that tongue in which they know best Christ's sentence".[3] A 15th Century source said Wycliffe "devised a plan of translation of the Holy Scriptures into the mother tongue".[4]: 93 

From the 16th century, it was generally believed that Wycliffe himself made the translation. Starting in the 19th century, scholars generally believed them to be the work of several hands,[4] all of whom were also priests, with Wycliffe having an increasingly small role. Nicholas of Hereford is known to have translated a part of the text; John Purvey and perhaps John Trevisa are names that have been mentioned as possible authors. The translators worked from the Vulgate, the Latin Bible that was the standard Biblical text of Western Christianity. Two different translations have been identified, known as the Early Version (EV) and the Later Version (LV). So the term "Wycliffite Bibles" is used by scholars.

The association between the Wycliffite Bibles (sometimes with a radical-in-parts prologue) and Lollardy, a sometimes-violent pre-Reformation movement that rejected many of the distinctive teachings of the Catholic Church, caused the Kingdom of England and the established Catholic Church in England to undertake a drastic campaign to suppress it. At the Oxford Convocation of 1408, it was solemnly voted that in England no new translation of the Bible should be made without prior approval.

Historical context

In the Middle Ages, most Western Christians encountered the scriptures primarily in the form of oral versions of scriptures, verses and homilies in Latin (other sources were mystery plays, usually performed in the vernacular, public preaching by traveling friars, and popular iconography).

The native Anglo-Saxon writing system, runes, was designed for inscribing on wood and stone, not for books, and eventually contributed to the English Latin alphabet, allowing the writing of Old and Middle English.

Example of Glossing: The Lord's Prayer (Pater noster) from Lindesfarne Gospels (698) with word-for-word Old English glosses (ca.970) by Aldred the Glossator

The earliest written-English versions of scripture were not translations but "glosses" on portions of the Latin Vulgate, such as the Vespasian Psalter. These glosses translated individual words and were used to help student monks to understand the primary Latin, but the word-for-word Old English annotations were not intended to necessarily form coherent sentences and sometimes could not be meaningfully read aloud or understood independently of the Latin.[5]

The Venerable Bede translated the Gospel of John into Old English (Anglo-Saxon) in 735 (now lost), which John Purvey would later cite as precedent when Wycliffe's version was challenged by the church.[6] Other precursor translations include the Wessex Gospels, written in the 10th Century:[5] copies were still being made up to 1175.[7]

Ælfric of Eynsham adapted various Old Testament books into Old English, including the Old English Hexateuch, but they were often abridged and summarized. By modern standards, they were more akin to adaptations or paraphrases than translations.[8][9] A primary Anglo-Saxon genre was the memorized epic poem suited for lengthy recitation by specialist declaimers,[10] so attempts were made to render biblical histories as poetry, rather than prose, such as the Old English Junius manuscript, the Early Middle English Ormulum, the Middle English Metrical Paraphrase of the Old Testament and the Metrical Paraphrase of the Gospels (1300).[11]

In the same century as Wycliffe, Richard Rolle translated the Psalms into the Middle English, using the same word-for-word literal style which would characterize Wycliffe's first translation (EV).[12][13] John of Thoresby translated the catechism into Middle English, which likely helped inspire Wycliffe's project.[14]

At the time of Wycliffe's translation, most people mainly heard scripture readings and ad hoc oral translations at church: the general level of literacy was low, and Bibles were costly (before the printing press). It is certain though that the Bible itself was familiar even to laymen[15] in the fourteenth century and that the whole of the New Testament at least could be read in translations.[16]

For most of the previous 300 years, England had been trilingual, with the aristocracy and secular courts using Anglo-Norman; lawyers, intellectuals, doctors and religious conducting their male affairs in Latin, the older language of record;[17] and with the general and rural population usually speaking dialects of English that were still transitioning from the four major dialects of Old English (or Cornish) to the incoming Middle English;[18] the linguistic upheaval from the Anglo-Norman injection being enough that the writer of the so-called General Prologue noted that now no-one could understand the old translations (i.e., the Old English.)

Recent medieval scholarship disputes a sharp divide[19] between a fully literate elite who understood Latin, and a completely illiterate, monolingual populace with no understanding of letters and latinities,[20][21] a common assertion in previous years.[22] For example, the godparent system created a duty for laypeople to ensure that their godchildren had been taught and explained the Latin of the common prayers and meaning of the liturgy, independent of the clergy or schooling.[23]

Latin manuscripts of scriptures were usually of selections of books: especially books of Psalms (Psalters, Book of Hours or breveries), or Gospel books: lay biblical material was designed for devotional and liturgical purposes, not theological disputation; similarly, few manuscripts of the Wycliffite translations are complete bibles. A complete vernacular Bible did exist in Anglo-Norman French, but it was likely rare, as only three manuscripts survive.[24]

An analysis of London wills from before Wycliffe's time suggests that only 1% of the laity owned and bequeathed a single book, and only five laypeople in England are known to have owned a complete Vulgate Bible between 1348 and 1368.[25] Even after the Wycliffite translations, the illiterate and poor still usually lacked the access to the Scripture: the full translation originally may have cost four marks and forty pence. [26][27] As with the Vulgate Latin scriptures, most Middle English Bible manuscripts contain selected books of the bible only, and decoration varied.[28]: 97 

Versions
Wycliffe's Bible in the British Library

Surviving copies of the Wycliffite Bible fall into two broad textual families, an early version (EV) and a later version (LV). The early version was likely aimed towards the less learned clergymen and the laymen, while the second, more coherent version was aimed towards all literates. Both versions are characterized by a close regard to the word order and syntax of the Latin base text: the word order being traditionally suspected of divinely inspiration;[29] the later versions give some indication of being revised in the direction of idiomatic English. A wide variety of Middle English dialects are represented.

The number of LV manuscripts is much larger than the number of EV manuscripts. Some manuscripts mix books of the Bible from the earlier version with other books of the later version; some scholars speculate that the earlier version may have been meant as a rough draft that was gradually improved by various scholars into the somewhat better English of the second version.[30]

The translators worked from the Vulgate, the Latin Bible that was the standard Biblical text of Western Christianity, using the standard Paris text, and without reference to or knowledge of Greek or Hebrew.[29] The manuscripts of complete bibles included the deuterocanonical books (called the Apocrypha by most Protestants) and also included the non-canonical 3 Esdras (which is now called 2 Esdras) and Paul's epistle to the Laodiceans.

Examples

The later version, though somewhat improved, still retained a number of infelicities of style, some of which may reflect the contemporary transitions in Middle English grammar, as in its version of Genesis 1:3

  • Vulgate - Latin:
    • "Dixitque Deus fiat lux et facta est lux"
  • Wycliffite EV - Middle English:
    • "And God seıde, Be maad lıȝt; and maad is lıȝt"
  • Wycliffied LV - Middle English:
    • "And God seide, Liȝt be maad; and liȝt was maad"
  • Rheims NT - Early Modern English:
    • "And God said: Be light made. And light was made"

The familiar verse of John 3:16 is rendered in various English versions as:

  • Vulgate - Latin:
    • "Sic enim Deus dilexit mundum, ut Filium suum unigenitum daret : ut omnis qui credit in eum, non pereat, sed habeat vitam aeternam."
  • Rushworth Manuscript (c.950) - Old English (Mercian):[31]
    • "Swa forðon lufade god ðiosne middengeard //þte sunu his ancenda gisalde //þt eghwelc soðe gilefeð in hine ne losað// ah hifeð lif ecce"
  • Wessex Gospels (c.950-1175) - Old English (West Saxon):
    • "God lufode middan-eard swa //þæt he sealde hys akennedan sune //þæt nan ne forwurðe þe on hine gelefð. Ac hæbe þt eche lyf."
  • Wycliffite EV (c.1382) - Middle English:[32]
    • "Forsoþe god lovede so þe worlde, þat he ȝave hıs one bıgotun sone, þat ech man þat bıleveþ into hym perısche not, but have everlastynge lıȷf."
  • Wycliffite LV (1394) - Middle English:
    • "For God lovede so the world, that he ȝaf his oon bigeten sone, that ech man that bileveth in him perische not, but have everlastynge lıȷf."
  • King James Version (1611) - Early Modern English:
    • "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

For more historical and modern translations, see Wikipedia article John 3:16.

Early Version

The first translations (Early Version(s), or EV) are rigid and literal translations of the Latin Vulgate Bible.

The existing manuscripts of the Early Version vary considerably from one another, showing revision.[33]: 305 

The Early Version may have begun as an English "gloss" on the Latin text, similar to the Vespasian Psalter.[34] It typically kept the order of individual words unchanged from the Latin,[35][36] which could lead to confusion or meaninglessness in English. It has been described as unintelligible without reference to the original Latin Vulgate.[37] For example, the phrase "Dominum formidabunt adversavi ejus" in 1 Samuel 2:10 was translated as "The Lord shulen drede the aduersaries of him" in the first version, then revised to "Aduersaries of the Lord schulen drede him" in the second version. John Stacey points out that "The scribe's desire to keep the words in their original order was stronger at this point than his regard for the rules of grammar."[38]

The original manuscript was written by five different people and ends at Baruch 3:20. These authors used different forms of words, such as loving vs lufand or luvend, making it unlikely that they were merely different scribes performing dictation.[39] The finished first translation contains a noticeable change in style after Baruch 3:20.[40] Two surviving manuscripts mark this verse with notes: one reads "Explicit translacionem Nicholay de herford" and another "Here endith the translacioun of N, and now bigynneth the translacioun of J and of othere men".[41] Hereford fled England for Rome in 1382, returning in 1391,[12] and the J who took over may have been John Trevisa or John Purvey.[42] These notes suggest that Wycliffe did not personally write the entire Bible, and may not have written any of it.[42]

Later Version

The Later Version (LV) was issued ten to twelve years after Wycliffe's death. This version has been subsequently attributed to John Purvey.

Glossed Gospels

After the first version was completed, John Purvey supplemented its translation of the Gospels with extensive commentary. Some of this commentary was original, but most was translated from earlier commentaries, especially Thomas Aquinas' Catena Aurea. The complete version, known as the Glossed Gospels, consisted of more than 90% commentary. These annotations included at least one heretical teaching; the commentary on Luke 17:19 promotes the doctrine of salvation by faith alone.[43] Despite this, Queen Anne of Bohemia received a copy and submitted it to Thomas Arundel, then Archbishop of York, who approved it. Arundel publicly reiterated his approval at Anne's funeral in 1394.[44]

Paues' Middle English New Testament

In 1904, Anna Paues published manuscripts of an unknown third translation of the New Testament (missing most of the Gospels) in Southern Middle English, including two sets of translations of the Catholic epistles, from ca. 1388, which may also have had some relationship to Wycliffe's circle.[45]

Oon of Foure Gospel Harmony

The Oon of Foure was a gospel harmony in Middle English. A scholar has suggested it represents an intermediate translation project between the literalisms of the EV and the modernisms of the LV.[37]

General Prologue or Four and Twenty Books

Ten LV manuscripts begin with a General Prologue (GP, also known as Four and Twenty Books) that has also subsequently been attributed to Purvey from either 1395 or 1396.[46] This prologue, analogous to the Prologus Galeatus, advocates reading the Old Testament, summarizes its books and relevant moral lessons, and explains the medieval four senses of Scripture and the interpretation rules of St. Augustine and St. Isidore.[47]

The writer of the prologue also explains a methodology of translating holy scriptures. He describes four rules all translators should acknowledge:

Firstly, the translator must be sure of the text he is translating. This he has done by comparing many old copies of the Latin bible to assure authenticity of the text. Secondly, the translator must study the text in order to understand the meaning. Purvey explains that one cannot translate a text without having a grasp of what is being read. Third, the translator must consult grammar, diction, and reference works to understand rare and unfamiliar words. Fourth, once the translator understands the text, translation begins by not giving a literal interpretation but expressing the meaning of the text in the receptor language (English), not just translating the word but the sentence as well.

— F.F. Bruce[48]

This method does not mention the Earlier Version (EV) at all, leading to scholarly doubts about either the connection of the LV with the EV, or the connection of the GP and the LV.[49]: 9  One suggested resolution is that the GP relates to a now lost revision between the EV and LV.[37]

The GP also contains polemical anti-clerical material that seems to relate to the restrictions of a later period: " for though greedy clerks (clergy) are wooden by simony, heresy, and many other sins, and despise and stop holy writ, as much as they can, yet the commoners cry after holy writ, to know it, and keep it, with great cost and peril of their lives."

Manuscripts

Although unauthorised, the work was popular. Wycliffe Bible texts are the most common manuscript literature in Middle English. Over 250 copies of the Wycliffe Bible survive, more than twice as many as the second most common manuscript literature; only 20 of these are complete bibles.[1] One copy sold at auction on 5 December 2016 for US$1,692,500.[50]

Since the printing press was not invented yet, there exist only a very few copies of Wycliffe's earlier Bible. It survives in around 250 manuscripts; two thirds contain some New Testament books only.[51]

Alternative attribution

In 1894, Irish Benedictine historian Dom Aidan Gasquet challenged the conventional attribution of the Middle English Bible to Wycliffe and his circle. He had reviewed to EV and LV from a Catholic perspective and found no translation errors that could have made the work heretical.[4]

The pamphlet Four and Twenty Books attached to a few of the manuscripts (and treated in later decades as a General Prologue (GP)) did have some unorthodox content, however that content did not seem to contain the specific errors that were later (1458) deemed heretical, suggesting that the GP had been added later and evolved.[49]

Gasquet found no convincing material that connected the EV and the LV to Wycliffe and his circle; for example that the manuscript mention of Purvey was not in the oldest copy and its presence in a later manuscript could refer to Purvey's ownership. Wycliff had never mentioned a translation effort, and his endorsements of the vernacular came towards the end of his life only.[4]

More recent scholars have provided several alternative creation sequences, that would also fit the evidence: for example that there was a previous existing Catholic EV that was glossed at Oxford University by e.g. scholars influenced by Wycliff's biblicism, and retranslated as the LV (and the Paues Middle English New Testament) though not as a mammoth project; one of those involved later added the GP, as the project was hijacked by Wycliffite/Lollard radicals.This would make more credible Thomas More's statement that he had seen older English translations in aristocratic libraries that were not Wycliffite (i.e., were the EV or LV without the GP.)[49]

The reliability of the GP has been questioned, because its statements (single translator, done all at once, no EV or glossing) do not square well with other evidence.[49]

Lollardy and censorship

Wycliffite versions of the Bible were sometimes condemned as such by the Catholic Church because a Wycliffite/Luddite preface had been added to an otherwise orthodox translation.[52]

This pestilent and wretched John Wyclif, of cursed memory, that son of the old serpent.. .endeavoured by every means to attack the very faith and sacred doctrine of Holy Church, devising—to fill up' the measure of his malice—the expedient of a new translation of the Scriptures into the mother tongue.

— Thomas Arundel,[53] attrib. Letter to Antipope John XXIII, c1411-1414, ; also attributed to Church Chronicle, 1395[54]: 9 

In 1381, Archbishop Simon Sudbury was killed in the Peasants' Revolt. The revolt was largely inspired by John Ball, who was sympathetic to Wycliffe, but likely not connected with him directly. Nonetheless, many in the church blamed Wycliffe and his Lollard followers for galvanizing the public against the church.

Sudbury was succeeded as Archbishop of Canterbury by William Courtenay, who had long opposed Wycliffe's teachings. Courtenay convened the Earthquake Synod, named because it was initially delayed by an earthquake that Wycliffe himself believed symbolised "the judgement of God". At this synod, Wycliffe's writings (Biblical and otherwise) were quoted and denounced as heresy.

As a result of the synod's findings, King Richard II banned Wycliffe's teachings. Wycliffe left Oxford in the summer of 1381, and his fellow scholars denounced his beliefs under threat of excommunication.[55][56]

In early 1395, the Lollards presented the Twelve Conclusions to parliament and published the accompanying polemic Ecclesiae Regimen. The second translation was finished within the next two years and quoted the Regimen in its General Prologue.

Thomas Arundel succeeded Courtenay as Archbishop of Canterbury in 1397. Although Arundel had previously approved the Glossed Gospels in his role as Archbishop of York, he now began to oppose English translations of the Bible. Margaret Deanesly speculates this change of heart was a reaction against the Lollards for these writings.[57]

The association between Wycliffite Bibles and Lollardy caused the Kingdom of England and the established Catholic Church in England to undertake a drastic campaign to suppress it. John Purvey himself recanted his heresies in February 1401.[58] In the early years of the 15th century Henry IV (in his 1491 statute De haeretico comburendo), Archbishop Thomas Arundel, and Henry Knighton published criticism and enacted some of the severest religious censorship laws in Europe at that time. Even twenty years after Wycliffe's death, at the Oxford Convocation of 1408, it was solemnly voted that no new translation of the Bible should be made without prior approval.

In 1409, Bishop Arundel's Constitutions (sometimes called the "Constitutions of Oxford")[59] took effect. These prohibited new literal[60] translations of any scripture, including individual texts, without authorization from the bishop on penalty of excommunication, including possessing or reading them in public.[61] The Constitutions also specifically forbade the reading of "any tract of John Wycliffe, or any other tract made in his time" that was not explicitly approved by the university.[62] The ban did not apply to translations as poetry (particularly the Psalms) or paraphrase: such as the Middle English Metrical Paraphrase of the Old Testament.

Although he did not authorize any fresh translations of the Bible itself—it is not known whether Arundel was ever presented with any applications to make new translations—Arundel did authorize an English translation of Meditations on the Life of Christ in 1410: Nicholas Love's The Mirror of the Blessed Life of Jesus Christ, an expansive paraphrase of the harmonized Gospels.[63] This translation, which became "the orthodox reading-book of the devout laity,"[64] included newly written passages that explicitly denounced Lollard beliefs.[65]

According to some commentators, owning an English Bible was thus effectively (though not actually) prohibited,[66] though this was primarily enforced against heretical members of the lower classes, not the aristocracy.[67][68] The Suppression of Heresy Act 1414 specifically ordered that possession of heretical material must be treated as information in any investigation not as evidence of heresy per se.

However, as the base text translated in the various versions of the Wycliffe (and Paues) Bible was the Latin Vulgate, there was in practice no way by which the ecclesiastical authorities could distinguish the banned version if it had no Wycliffite prefaces or annotations;[69] consequently, manuscripts of the Wycliffe translations, which when inscribed with a date always purport to precede 1409, the date of the ban, circulated freely and were widely used by clergy and laity. Catholic commentators of the 15th and 16th centuries such as Thomas More believed these manuscript Middle English English Bibles to represent an anonymous earlier orthodox translation.

This strict enforcement of religious orthodoxy may have constrained the development of English literature and religious thought over the next century. David Daniell suggests that "had he written after 1409, his anti-clericalism would have led Chaucer himself to be investigated as a heretic"[70] and David Lawton argues that the Constitutions made it unsafe to write works like Piers Plowman.[71] Bishop Reginald Pecock attempted to rebut Lollardy on Wycliffe's own terms, writing in the vernacular and relying on scripture and reason instead of church authority. Stephen Lahey argues that these responses "may be the first genuine philosophical literature in the English language." Despite arguing in favor of the Catholic church, Pecock's approach led to his own charges of heresy.[72]

John Wycliffe
Main article: John Wycliffe
John Wycliffe reading his translation of the Bible to John of Gaunt. John's wife and child are also depicted, along with poets Geoffrey Chaucer and John Gower. c. 1859

John Wycliffe was ordained as a priest in 1351.[73] Between 1372 and 1374 he composed a postil (a Biblical summary and commentary). This was unusual, as postils were typically written by friars, not priests.[74]

In 1377, Wycliffe published De Civili Dominio, which harshly criticized the church's wealth and argued that the king should confiscate ecclesiastical property. Pope Gregory XI responded with a series of five bulls against Wycliffe, and Archbishop Simon Sudbury ordered Wycliffe to appear on trial for his beliefs in March 1378. Joan of Kent, the queen mother, intervened and prevented his arrest.[75]

Wycliffe believed that scripture was the ultimate source of truth, superseding even Aristotle's system of logic, and associated the words of scripture with the divine Word of Christ (see John 1:1).[76] He believed that preaching the gospel was vastly more important than performing sacraments.[77] He promoted an early version of Luther's priesthood of all believers, conceiving of "the church" as the collection of elect Christians rather than the ecclesiastical hierarchy overseen by the Pope,[78] and argued that the Pope had no authority to excommunicate believers.[79] Beginning in 1380, Wycliffe wrote a series of texts denying transubstantiation. He argued that Pope Innocent III's interpretation of the doctrine was not founded in scripture and contradicted the views of Jerome and Augustine, and therefore constituted apostasy. This rejection of papal authority further worsened Wycliffe's relationship with the church.[80]

Wycliffe advocated a doctrine known as "Dominion by Grace", under which everyone has a direct responsibility to God and his law, [81] and accordingly believed every Christian should study the Bible. He believed that the requirements for salvation could be directly understood by everyone, provided they had access to the text in a language they understood.[82] When he met with opposition to the translation he replied "Christ and his apostles taught the people in that tongue that was best known to them. Why should men not do so now?" For one to have a personal relationship with God, Wycliffe believed that need to be described in the Bible. Wycliffe also believed that it was necessary to return to the primitive state of the New Testament in order to truly reform the Church and in order to do so, one must be able to read the Bible to understand those times.[83] Some English lords owned French Bibles, and Margaret Deanesly argues that an English translation similarly targeted at royalty was inevitable and likely would have been uncontroversial, but "the essential novelty of the Wycliffite translations was that they were intended for a wider public, and a lower social class."[84]

It is questioned whether Wycliffe himself translated the whole Bible. In any case, it is certain that in the fifteenth century portions of the Scriptures were called Wycliffite.[85]

Supporters of the view that Wycliffe did translate the Bible hold that when Wycliffe took on the challenge of translating, he was breaking a long-held belief that no person should translate the Bible on their own initiative, without approval of the Church. It is said that his frustrations drove him to ignore this and that Wycliffe believed that studying the Bible was more important than listening to it read by the clergy.

John Wycliffe was never excommunicated. However, on 4 May 1415, the Council of Constance posthumously declared Wycliffe a heretic and decreed that his remains should be exhumed and burned.[86] In 1428, at the command of Pope Martin V, Wycliffe's remains were dug up, burned, and the ashes cast into the River Swift, which flows through Lutterworth.

Influence on subsequent English Bibles

While the Middle English Bible translations were based on the Latin Vulgate, the Reformation era translations by William Tyndale (Tyndale Bible) and Miles Coverdale (Great Bible) used the original Greek and Hebrew. Tyndale does not credit Wycliffe as a source, but he was almost certainly familiar with Wycliffite Bibles, and his translation sometimes seems to overlap with Wycliffe's. He may have been influenced by hearing Wycliffe's version read aloud, but the degree of influence is unclear and actively debated.[87][88]

Despite being written more than a century later, Tyndale's translation came to overshadow Wycliffe's. According to the Cambridge History of the Bible, "The Bible which permeated the minds of later generations shows no direct descent from the Wycliffite versions... Tyndale's return to the original languages meant that translations based on the intermediate Latin of the Vulgate would soon be out of date."[89] Consequently, it was generally ignored in later English Protestant biblical scholarship. Herbert Brook Workman argues that "In later years the existence of Wyclif's version seems to have been forgotten", pointing out that John Wesley incorrectly identified Tyndale's Bible as the first English translation.[90][91]

However, due to the common use of surviving manuscripts of Wycliffite Bibles as works of an unknown Catholic translator, this version continued to circulate among 16th-century English Catholics, and many of its renderings of the Vulgate into English were or became established idiom and were adopted by the translators of the Rheims New Testament, one of the bases of the King James Version.

Wycliffe's Bible in print

The earliest printed edition, of the New Testament only, was by John Lewis in 1731.[92]

In 1850, Forshall and Madden published a four-volume critical edition of the Wycliffite Bibles containing the text of the earlier and later versions in parallel columns.[93][94] Forshall and Madden's edition retains the letter yogh (ʒ) but replaces the thorn (þ) with the digraph th.

See also

Notes
  1. As a New Testament portion.

References
  1. Daniell 2003, p. 66.
  2. "Versions of the Bible", Catholic Encyclopedia, New advent.
  3. Robinson, Henry Wheeler (1970), The Bible in its Ancient and English Versions, Westport, CT, USA: Greenwood Press, pp. 137–45.
  4. Matthew, F. D. (1895). "The Authorship of the Wycliffite Bible". The English Historical Review. 10 (37): 91–99. ISSN 0013-8266. JSTOR 547995.
  5. Deanesly 1920, p. 136.
  6. Deanesly 1920, p. 133.
  7. "Wessex Gospels c.1175 Textus Receptus Bibles".
  8. Shepherd, Geoffery (1969). "English Versions Of The Scriptures Before Wyclif". In Lampe, G. (ed.). Cambridge History of the Bible, Volume 2. Cambridge University Press. p. 375.
  9. Lawton 1999, p. 463.
  10. "The Scop". csis.pace.edu.
  11. Campbell, Gertrude H. (1915). "The Middle English Evangelie". PMLA. 30 (3): 529–613. doi:10.2307/456948. JSTOR 456948. S2CID 164154492.
  12. Deanesly 1920, p. 254.
  13. Lawton 1999, p. 470.
  14. Lahey 2009, p. 24.
  15. "Sixteen years ago I wrote a book that attempted to document and index the contents of all Middle English poetry and prose that consisted largely of biblical material. These contents are idiosyncratic and eclectic, but when taken as a whole nearly all of the Old and New Testaments exist in Middle English before the Wycliffites began their project in the 1380s." James H. Morey, The Wycliffites: Hosts or Guests, First Finders or Followers? in Solopova, Elizabeth (1 January 2017). "The Wycliffite Bible: Origin, History and Interpretation". doi:10.1163/9789004328921_007. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help), p85
  16. "John Wyclif", Catholic Encyclopedia. 1913
  17. Rothwell, W. (1994). "The Trilingual England of Geoffrey Chaucer". Studies in the Age of Chaucer. 16 (1): 45–67. doi:10.1353/sac.1994.0002. S2CID 166176909.
  18. John Trevisa noted this transition and regionality: "Although, from the beginning, Englishmen had three manners of speaking, southern, northern and midlands speech in the middle of the country, ... Nevertheless, through intermingling and mixing, first with Danes and then with Normans, amongst many the country language has arisen, and some use strange stammering, chattering, snarling, and grating gnashing." Bammesberger, Alfred (1992). "Chapter 2: The Place of English in Germanic and Indo-European". In Hogg, Richard M. (ed.). The Cambridge History of the English Language. Vol. 1: The Beginnings to 1066. Cambridge University Press. pp. 26–66. ISBN 978-0-521-26474-7.
  19. "Practically speaking, medieval English people encountered and used all three languages regularly." Hall, Megan J. (May 2021). "Women's Education and Literacy in England, 1066–1540". History of Education Quarterly. 61 (2): 181–212. doi:10.1017/heq.2021.8. S2CID 233401379.
  20. Jones, M. Claire (2000). Vernacular literacy in late-medieval England: the example of East Anglian medical manuscripts (PhD). University of Glasgow.
  21. Hall, op. cit., makes the distinction within "reading" that the ability to sound out Latin words and knowing and understanding memorized liturgical texts was common in the population, however the ability to understand the words and meaning of non-liturgical Latin texts was rarer.
  22. O'Hare, Patrick F.: "The Facts about Luther", TAN Books and Publishers, 1987, p.181
  23. Orme, Nicholas (2021). Going to Church in Medieval England. Yale University Press. doi:10.2307/j.ctv1t1kfhr. ISBN 978-0-300-25650-5. JSTOR j.ctv1t1kfhr. S2CID 237658138. Retrieved 11 August 2023.
  24. Deanesly 1920, p. 142.
  25. Deanesly 1920, p. 220.
  26. I.e., two pounds, sixteen shillings and eightpence. The UK National Archives online calculator estimates this as at around £1,736 in 2017 terms, or 4 cows or 141 days of wages of a skilled tradesman. "Currency converter: 1270–2017". Another calculator estimates £2,300 in 2023 terms, and perhaps ten times as much. "Purchasing Power Calculator".
  27. Levy, Ian C, Companion to John Wyclif: Late Medieval Theologian, Brill Academic Publishers, p. 395.
  28. Solopova, Elizabeth (2017). "The Wycliffite Bible: origin, history and interpretation". doi:10.1086/9789004328921_007 (inactive 2023-08-27). {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of August 2023 (link)
  29. Hagreaves, Henry (1965). "From Bede to Wyclif: Medieval English Bible translations" (PDF). Bulletin of the John Rylands Library. 48 (1): 118–140. doi:10.7227/BJRL.48.1.7. S2CID 193286581. Retrieved 27 September 2023.
  30. Hargreaves 1969, p. 407.
  31. "The Holy Gospels in Anglo-Saxon, Northumbrian, and Old Mercian Versions: Synoptically Arranged ..." The University Press. 1878.
  32. "Manuscripts : Earlier Version Wycliffe New Testament". Manchester Digital Collections. University of Manchester.
  33. Raschko, Mary (2017). "Re-Forming the Life of Christ". Europe After Wyclif. Fordham University Press: 288–308. ISBN 9780823274420. JSTOR j.ctt1f114xz.15.
  34. Daniell 2003, p. 83.
  35. Daniell 2003, p. 79.
  36. Hargreaves 1969, p. 399.
  37. Smith, Paul (December 2008). "Could the Gospel Harmony Oon of Foure Represent an Intermediate Version of the Wycliffite Bible?". Studia Neophilologica. 80 (2): 160–176. doi:10.1080/00393270802083034. S2CID 170339480.
  38. Stacey, John (1964). John Wyclif and Reform. Westminster Press. p. 75.
  39. Deanesly 1920, p. 253.
  40. Daniell 2003, p. 82.
  41. Hargreaves 1969, p. 400.
  42. Hargreaves 1969, p. 404.
  43. Deanesly 1920, p. 279.
  44. Deanesly 1920, pp. 275–280.
  45. Anna C. Paues, A Fourteenth Century English Biblical Version (Cambridge, 1904).
  46. Hargreaves 1969, p. 410.
  47. Deanesly 1920, p. 256.
  48. Bruce, Frederick Fyvie (April 1998), "John Wycliffe and the English Bible" (PDF), Churchman, Church society, retrieved March 16, 2011
  49. Kelly, Henry Ansgar (2016). The Middle English Bible: a reassessment. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 9780812248340.
  50. "Wycliffite New Testament in the Later Version, in Middle English". Sotheby's. Retrieved 13 December 2016.
  51. Morey, James H. (1 January 2013). "Paul in Old and Middle English". A Companion to St. Paul in the Middle Ages: 449–468. doi:10.1163/9789004236721_017. ISBN 9789004236721.
  52. "John Wyclif", Catholic Encyclopedia. 1913
  53. Hargreaves 1969, p. 388.
  54. Nobles, T (2001). Wyciffe's New Testament (PDF). CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. ISBN 9781467994934.
  55. "11", The Peasants' Revolt and the Blackfriars Trial, UK: LWBC, archived from the original on October 31, 2016, retrieved January 4, 2018
  56. Lahey 2009, pp. 24–27.
  57. Deanesly 1920, p. 282.
  58. Deanesly 1920, p. 284.
  59. "Archbishop Thomas Arundel's Constitutions against the Lollards". www.bible-researcher.com.
  60. Deanesly 1920, p. 3.
  61. Justice 1999, p. 676.
  62. Deanesly 1920, p. 298.
  63. Bonaventure, Saint; Love, Nicholas; Powell, Lawrence Fitzroy (1908). "The mirrour of the blessed lyf of Jesu Christ : a translation of the Latin work entitled Meditationes vitae Christi /cattributed to Cardinal Bonaventura : Made before the year 1410 by Nicholas Love, Prior of the Carthusian monastery of Mount Grace ; edited by Lawrence F. Powell". Oxford : Clarendon Press.
  64. Deanesly 1920, p. 321.
  65. Deanesly 1920, p. 324.
  66. However, "It seems implausible that so many manuscripts of the Wycliffite bible could have survived…if bishops had really been determined to suppress it in all circumstances." Marshall, Peter (2018). Heretics and believers: a history of the English Reformation (First published in paperback ed.). New Haven London: Yale University Press. ISBN 9780300234589.: 119 
  67. Lawton 1999, p. 459.
  68. Further, "But Lollards were not prosecuted for being lower middle class; nor for the mere fact of possessing English books. What mattered was how they chose to interpret them. For those already believed to hold heretical opinions, the ownership of vernacular scriptures might indeed clinch the case against them." Marshall, Peter (2018). Heretics and believers: a history of the English Reformation (First published in paperback ed.). New Haven London: Yale University Press. ISBN 9780300234589.: 119 
  69. "Changes to the layout, such as the removal of Wycliffite paratextual material (the Great Prologue and marginal glosses particularly), the addition of the old testament readings from the Mass to new testament manuscripts, and a table of contents facilitating the retrieval of the liturgical readings made the copies also acceptable to an orthodox—both clerical and lay—readership." François, Wim (2018). "Vernacular Bible Reading in Late Medieval and Early Modern Europe: The "Catholic" Position Revisited". The Catholic Historical Review. 104 (1): 23–56. doi:10.1353/cat.2018.0001. S2CID 163790511.
  70. Daniell 2003, p. 109.
  71. Lawton 1999, pp. 481–482.
  72. Lahey 2009, p. 223.
  73. Lahey 2009, p. 5.
  74. Lahey 2009, pp. 149–150.
  75. Lahey 2009, pp. 16–19.
  76. Lahey 2009, pp. 135–168.
  77. Lahey 2009, p. 195.
  78. Lahey 2009, p. 189.
  79. Lahey 2009, p. 197.
  80. Lahey 2009, pp. 131–134.
  81. Daniell 2003, p. 71.
  82. Hargreaves 1969, p. 392.
  83. John, Stacey. John Wyclif and Reform. Westminster Press, 1964.
  84. Deanesly 1920, p. 226.
  85. "John Wyclif", Catholic Encyclopedia. 1913
  86. Lahey 2009, p. 29.
  87. Daniell 2003, pp. 87–89.
  88. Lawton 1999, pp. 474–476.
  89. Hargreaves 1969, p. 414.
  90. Workman, Herbert (1926). John Wyclif: A Study of the English Medieval Church, Volume 2. Oxford University Press. p. 200.
  91. Wesley, John (1872). Collected Works of John Wesley, Volume VII. London: Wesleyan Methodist Book Room. Retrieved 18 June 2023.
  92. "Wycliffe New Testament (1731)". library.garrett.edu. Retrieved July 9, 2021.
  93. "Wycliffe's Bible: A colour facsimile of Forshall and Madden's 1850 edition of the Middle English translation of the Latin Vulgate". evertype.com. Retrieved July 9, 2021.
  94. The Holy Bible, containing the Old and New Testaments, with the Apocryphal books, in the earliest English versions made from the Latin Vulgate by John Wycliffe and his followers. OCLC 764293237. Retrieved July 9, 2021 – via www.worldcat.org.
  95. Borges, Jorge Luis (1975). El Libro de Arena. E. P. Dutton Publishing. ASIN B000P23CAI.

Sources
  • Daniell, David (2003), The Bible in English, Yale, ISBN 0-300-09930-4.
  • Deanesly, Margaret (1920). The Lollard Bible and Other Medieval Bible Versions. Cambridge University Press.
  • Hargreaves, Henry (1969). "The Wycliffite Versions". In Lampe, G. (ed.). The Cambridge History of the Bible, Volume 2. Cambridge University Press.
  • Justice, Steven (1999). "Lollardy". In Wallace, David (ed.). The Cambridge History of Medieval English Literature. Cambridge University Press.
  • Lahey, Stephen (2009). John Wyclif. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-518331-3.
  • Lawton, David (1999). "Englishing the Bible". In Wallace, David (ed.). The Cambridge History of Medieval English Literature. Cambridge University Press.

Further reading
  • Forshall, Josiah; Madden, Frederic, eds. (1850), The Holy Bible: Wycliffite Versions, Oxford.
  • Wycliffe, John and John Purvey (2012), Wycliffe's Bible, A Modern-Spelling Version of their 14th Century Translation, with an Introduction by Terence P. Noble, Createspace, ISBN 978-1-4701493-8-3
The Bible in English
 Bible portal
Wikisource has original text related to this article:
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.