Do KJV-only advocates accept Wycliffe's?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Logos1560, Jan 1, 2007.

  1. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    The old Wycliffe’s Bible is included on the good line or preserved stream made by some KJV-only authors. Cimino suggested that Wycliffe’s Bible of 1382 came “from the same type of Greek text” as the KJV (The Book, p. 14). David Cloud listed Wycliffe’s as part of the heritage of the KJV (Faith, p. 433). Cloud wrote that “the foundation for the English Bible was the Wycliffe Bible of 1384” (p. 532). Cloud noted: “In English, the Word of God was preserved prior to 1611 with some impurities in the Wycliffe version based on Latin from 1384” (Bible Version Question/Answer, p. 92). He described it as “a good Bible with plain, powerful language” (p. 96). Cloud commented: “Though Wycliffe translated from Latin rather than Hebrew and Greek, his translation was good” (pp. 170-171). Laurence Vance wrote that “Wycliffe did his translating from the only Bible then in use: the Latin Vulgate” (Brief History, p. 6; King James, His Bible, p. 78). Gail Riplinger claimed that it is a myth that the Wycliffe Bible came from Jerome’s Latin Vulgate (In Awe, pp. 773, 788-789)
     
  2. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    Interesting . It's said that Wycliffe did noy personally translate thogh . And there were two versions -- the first was overly form-driven to the Latin . The next one 14 or so years later and after wycliffe's death was an idiomatic translation so that the common person ( who had no knowledge of Latin )could understand . Though the first one was supposedly written in English the Latinized English was awkward to comprehend .

    G.A. as usual , doesn't know what she is talking about . Or if she knows the truth chooses to misrepresent it .
     
  3. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    It seems that they do, although I am baffled as to a reason. The Wycliffe/Purvey translations are disconnected from Tyndale's work (which became the basis for many English translations leading to the AV/KJV). It is my inderstanding that Tyndale's work was original from the ancient languages. Is there evidence that shows any dependence, or influence, of Wycliffe/Purvey upon Tyndale?
     
  4. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    My research confirms that Tyndale translated from the original languages
    [Greek for the New Testament; Hebrew for the part of the O. T. he was able to translate before his death]. At times, there is some indication that Tyndale was influenced by sources such as Luther's German Bible and the Latin Vulgate. I have not seen any evidence that shows a direct influence of the Wycliffe's Bible on Tyndale. It may be possible that Tyndale or one of the other pre-1611 English translators had seen a manuscript copy of Wycliffe's or had heard it read at some time during their lifetime, but if they had access to a copy of Wycliffe's it does not seem to be presently known.

    Geddes MacGregor pointed out that Wycliffe’s “was enormously popular, attaining an astonishing circulation for a book issued before the days of printing” (Literary History, p. 79). It is not known how much of the translating if any was actually done by John Wycliffe. MacGregor noted that “to Nicholas of Hereford is to be attributed the greater part of the translation into English of the Old Testament in the manuscript in the Bodleian Library, Oxford” (p. 78). Deanesly maintained “that one person [John Purvey] wrote the General Prologue [to the Old Testament], and that he edited also the second version of the Wycliffite Bible” (Lollard Bible, pp. 266, 377). David Daniell suggested that John Trevisa was a translator of “the later improved edition” of Wycliffe’s Bible (Bible in English, pp. 91-95). Glenn Conjurske asserted: “as for the Wycliffe Bible being translated from the Old Latin, there is a mountain of evidence to the contrary. It was translated from the Latin Vulgate, and is in fact a very literal translation from the Vulgate” (Olde Paths, April, 1994, p. 94). MacGregor also maintained that the Wycliffe Bible “follows it [the Latin Vulgate] very closely” (Literary History, p. 79). Weigle wrote: “The first version of the Wyclif Bible was a careful literal translation of the Latin Vulgate, with the English words following the order of the Latin words as closely as possible” (N. T. Octapla, p. xv).
     
  5. Rufus_1611

    Rufus_1611
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    3,006
    Likes Received:
    0
    I was not aware of Wycliffe having completed a Bible but only a New Testament. Do you understand it differently?
     
  6. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Wycliffe's Bible of the late 1300's included both the Old Testament and New Testament. There were two different editions of Wycliffe's Bible.

    It was Tyndale's that was only a complete New Testament. William Tyndale did translate some O. T. books that were printed [Genesis to Deut. and separately the book of Jonah]. Tyndale is also thought to have translated Joshua to 2 Chronicles, and it is thought that John Rogers made use of Tyndale's manuscript of those books in his 1537 Matthew's Bible. Tyndale was put to death before he could get any more of his O. T. translating printed.
     
  7. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    If KJVO believers think, as Cloud, that Wycliffe's Bible was preserved although impure, they should not accept it as being valid because they refuse to accept any of the MVs, saying the MVs are invalid due to impurities. If impurities render post-1611 versions invalid, then impurities should also render pre-1611 versions invalid. A question this brings to mind is "Why would God bother to preserve something impure when He could have preserved a perfect translation?"
     
  8. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Rufus, if you're interested you can find Wycliffe's Bible as one of the many Bible selections at http://www.studylight.org (probably the best selection of Bible versions available in the internet).

     
  9. Rufus_1611

    Rufus_1611
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    3,006
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank you Keith. Many more Bibles to select from there than the previous site I was using.

    Thanks to Logos as well.
     
  10. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Along with its use at Matthew 3:2, this rendering "penance" is also found other times in Wycliffe's (Matt. 21:29; 21:32; Mark 6:12; Luke 5:32; 13:3, 5; 15:7, etc.). Do KJV-only advocates agree with the rendering "priests" instead of "elders" in Acts 14:23 and Titus 1:5 in Wycliffe's Bible? At Matthew 3:6, Wycliffe's Bible has "and they were christened of him in Jordan." It read "Jesus christened" at Luke 3:21 and “christened“ at Acts 18:8. The rendering "sacrament" can be found in Wycliffe's Bible at Ephesians 1:9, 3:3, 3:9, 5:32; Colossians 1:27, 1 Timothy 3:16, and Revelation 1:20 and 17:7. It has “deacon” (Luke 10:32) instead of “Levite” and “bishops” (John 7:45, 11:47, 18:3) instead of “chief priests.“ Wycliffe’s has “Christ” (1 Sam. 2:10, 2 Sam. 23:1, Ps. 2:2) where the KJV has “anointed” and “Jesus” (Hab. 3:18) where the KJV has “salvation.“ Wycliffe's has "maiden" instead of "virgin" at Luke 1:27 and “old women in holy habit“ at Titus 2:3 instead of “aged women.” Wycliffe's Bible has the rendering "Calvary" from the Latin Vulgate's Calvariae at Matthew 27:33 and Mark 15:22 where the KJV does not. Wycliffe's Bible has “Isaiah the prophet“ (Mark 1:2), “fruit of light“ (Eph. 5:9), "dread of Christ" (Eph. 5:21), and “eagle“ (Rev. 8:13). Clearly, many words or renderings in the Wycliffe's Bible are different from those in the KJV.


    Wycliffe’s Bible omitted “for thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever“ (Matt. 6:13), "Jesus saith unto them" (Matt. 13:51), "wherein the Son of man cometh" (Matt. 25:13), “spoken by Daniel the prophet“ (Mark 13:14), “But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work“ (Rom. 11:6), and “and in your spirit, which are God‘s“ (1 Cor. 6:10). It added: "taught them of the kingdom of God" (Matt. 21:17), "and he shall increase" (Luke 19:26), “and he saith to his disciples” (John 13:38 or 14:1), “of Jesus“ (Acts 16:7), and “after the purpose of God‘s grace“ (Rom. 4:5). At Matthew 24:41, this addition is in Wycliffe's: "twain in one bed, the one shall be taken and the other left." The following was added at John 7:28: "I know him, and if I shall say for I know him not, I shall be like to you, a liar." At Acts 14:7, there is this addition: “and all the multitude was moved together in the teaching of them.“ At Acts 15:41, it added: “commanding to keep the hests of apostles and elder men.“ Wycliffe’s has this addition at Acts 18:4: “putting among the name of the Lord Jesus.“ At 2 John 11, it added: "Lo, I before said to you that ye be not confounded in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ." At Revelation 9:11, it added the following: “And by Latin he has the name Exterminans, that is, a destroyer.“ Other differences (additions and omissions) in Wycliffe's could be given.


    Both the early edition of Wycliffe’s Bible and the later edition also have some additions that seem to be explanations of words used in the text. Glenn Conjurske observed: “The glosses in the early version are very plentiful, and most of them are simply definitions or explanations of words” (Olde Paths, Oct., 1994, p. 228). A few examples from the later edition are here offered as evidence. After “delium” at Genesis 2:12, the 1395 Wycliffe Bible added: “that is, a tree of spicerie.” At Exodus 17:13, the 1395 Wycliffe Bible has the following rendering with explanation in the text: “in the mouth of sword, that is, by the sharpness of the sword.” At the end of Numbers 21:3 after “Hormah,“ several words were added in the later Wycliffe’s [“that is, cursing, either hanging up”]. After “great” at Deuteronomy 4:7, the 1395 Wycliffe Bible has this addition: “not in number either in bodily quantity, but in dignity.”


    This Bible rendered the Latin Vulgate at Psalm 23:1a as follows: "Our Lord governeth me." At Genesis 36:24, Wycliffe's has "hot waters" as does the Douay-Rheims instead of "mules," the KJV rendering. Some of the examples in the above paragraphs showed that Wycliffe's Bible included some Vulgate readings in its text. MacGregor confirmed that the translation in the Wycliffe Bible follows the text of the Latin Vulgate “very closely” (Literary History, p. 79). This evidence also suggests that Wycliffe’s differs more from the KJV than does Webster's, the NKJV, the MKJV, KJ21, or KJ2000. The fact that many KJV-only advocates can accept Wycliffe’s Bible when it differs more from the KJV than some present English translations points out serious inconsistencies in KJV-only reasoning.

     
  11. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    If Wycliffe's version was based on the Vulgate, it would naturally have more differences with the KJV than those later versions translated from the same Greek texts as the KJV. But yes, there is a definite inconsistency in accepting the Wycliffe Bible and rejecting all MVs.
     
  12. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    This does seem to indicate inconsistency or a double standard in KJV-only reasoning.
     
  13. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    The KJVO belief system is based on inconsistency, double standards and just plain error.
     
  14. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    John 1:28 and Wycliffe's Bible

    The old Wycliffe’s Bible on the KJV-only view’s line of good Bibles has a different reading than the KJV at John 1:28. Wycliffe’s has “Bethany” while the KJV has “Bethabara.” Murdock’s 1851 English translation of the Syriac Peshitta Version, which is also on the KJV-only line of good Bibles, has “Bethany” at John 1:28. Likewise, the Old Latin on the KJV-only line of good Bibles has “Bethany” at this verse. The Anglo-Saxon has “Bethania” (Bosworth, Gospels, p. 442). David Cloud acknowledged that the first and second editions of the Greek text edited by Stephanus have “Bethany” at John 1:28 (Bible Version Question/Answer Database, p. 173). Edward F. Hills also affirmed that the first and second editions of Stephanus’ Greek text along with the “majority of Greek manuscripts” have “Bethany” at John 1:28 (KJV Defended, p. 222). That means that at least two editions of the Textus Receptus have “Bethany” at John 1:28. In agreement with these two TR editions, the Majority Text Interlinear translated by Farstad and others has “Bethany.” Likewise, Gary Zeolla’s Analytical-Literal Translation of the Byzantine Majority Text edited by Maurice Robinson and William Pierpont has “Bethany” at John 1:28. Tyndale’s to Bishops’ Bibles have the same reading as the KJV--“Bethabara.” Which of these two different readings on the KJV-only view’s line of good Bibles is the correct or more accurate one?

    F. W. Farrar asserted: “Bethany is the most ancient and best supported reading. It was conjecturally altered by Origen, in the second century, into Bethabara, because he only knew of one Bethany” (Texts, p. 90). Ralph Earle also maintained that Origen “tells us that he could not find any Bethany near the Jordan River, although he admits that Bethania is the reading of ‘nearly all the manuscripts.’ So he deliberately changed Bethania to Bethabara, and the latter became the dominant reading in the late manuscripts” (Word Meanings, p. 83). In the volume on John in The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, A. Plummer wrote: “The true reading is Bethany, which was changed to Bethabara owing to the powerful influence of Origen, who could find no Bethany beyond Jordan in his day” (p. 74). Metzger wrote that “at John 1:28 Origen altered Bethania to Bethabara in order to remove what he regarded as a geographical difficulty” (Text, p. 199). A. T. Robertson wrote “not ‘in Bethabara’ as Origen suggested . . . under the mistaken notion that the only Bethany was that near Jerusalem” (Word Pictures, V, p. 22). McClintock and Strong wrote: “Instead of Bethabara in John 1:28 (where the text was altered since Origen’s time), the reading in the oldest and best MSS is Bethany” (Cyclopedia, I, p. 772).
     

Share This Page

Loading...