What makes Wycliffe's Bible a "great Bible?"

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Logos1560, Feb 10, 2009.

  1. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    In another thread, stilllearning posted: "But in the same breath, I said that there were many other great Bibles of that time:
    (William Tyndale's Bible), (Miles Coverdale's Bible), (John Wycliffe’s Bible), (The Bishop's Bible), (The Geneva Bible) etc.
    So in the strictest since [sense], I am not really KJVO."

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    What qualities or characteristics make the Wycliffe's Bible a "great Bible?"

    Was the Wycliffe's Bible actually translated from the exact same underlying texts from which the KJV was translated?

    Have you ever read the Wycliffe's Bible and compared it to the KJV?
     
  2. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'd consider the Wycliffe Bible a "great" Bible for the simple reason that this was the first English Bible for those who spoke what we term "Middle" English, and would be basically the only available complete English Bible for the next 150 years.

    The Wycliffe was actually translated from the Latin Vulgate, however, and not directly from the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, hence making it a translation of a translation of the Bible. While all the underlying texts are basically very similar in a great majority of instances, it was certainly not from the same "exact" texts considering the Massoretic texts for the OT we have date only back to around 800-1000, and the Greek texts of Erasmus, would not be even compiled for more than a century, at the time of the translation of the Vulgate.

    "A" still does not equal "B", in any 'exact' sense.

    Or as the late Dean John Burgeon so well put it - "Very nearly--not quite".

    Ed
     
    #2 EdSutton, Feb 12, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 12, 2009
  3. stilllearning

    stilllearning
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    2
    Hi Logos1560

    Sorry for not responding sooner: (If indeed this question was directed toward me.)


    You asked........
    “What makes Wycliffe's Bible a "great Bible?"

    Because it is a Bible translated from accurate manuscripts, before Warfield.
     
  4. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    You're kiding, right? We're talkin' Wycliffe's version y'know.
     
  5. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Vulgate (VUL) is always accurate manuscripts??? :rolleyes:

    Oh please. Once again I ask the question that i've asked before, which is -
    "Do you really consider the Apocrypha to be inspired Scripture??"

    Do you consider the VUL in the same way as did the 'Roman Catholic' Church?
    Ya' know - come to think of it, I could almost substitute 'English" for "Latin" and this would apply to the KJV, with what is effectively being presented by several, right here on this forum.

    How is it that the VUL was fairly accurately rendered in the WYC (hence the claim of "acurate manuscripts") but somehow not in the D/R, which renderings are often far closer to those of the GEN and KJV than they ever were to the WYC?? (FTR, the KJV rendering of I Jn. 5:12 in the 1611 was lifted verbatim from the D/R, apparently, for this rendering is found nowhere else, including the Vulgate.) Strange how the gyrations of logic of those of the KJVO and KJVA persuasion appear to work on this.

    Gimme' a break!

    Ed
     
  6. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Wycliffe's Bible has the rendering "penance" several times (Matt. 3:2; 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). The 1395 edition of Wyclife’s has “five thousand” at 1 Kings 4:32 where the KJV has “a thousand and five.“ At 2 Kings 14:17, the 1395 edition of Wycliffe’s has “five and twenty years” where the KJV has “fifteen years.“ 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. For example, there are additions in the 1395 edition of Wycliffe’s at Proverbs 4:27, 6:11, and 15:5.

    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.”

    In his introduction to a modern-spelling edition of Wycliffe’s N. T., Stephen P. Westcott pointed out that the earlier edition of Wycliffe’s followed the Latin word order and sentence structure at 1 Samuel 21:10 [reference should be 2:10] (p. xviii). Its rendering was “The Lord should dread the adversaries of him.” By following the Latin order, in effect this rendering reversed the meaning of the phrase. The later edition as seen in the 1395 Wycliffe’s changed the phrase to “Adversaries of the Lord should dread him.”

    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 earlier 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. H. T. W. Wood maintained: “There is much more difference between Wiclif and Tyndale, than between Tyndale and the Authorized Version” (Changes in the English Language, p. 55).


    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.
     
  7. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    That is one of the most absurd statements I have ever heard -- and I've heard a bunch.

    Most of the modern versions of the last nearly 500 years have had access to more accurate manuscripts than the so-called Wycliffe Bibles (editions one and two).I'm not saying this to demean Wycliffe and his boys either.They did wonderful things for the Kingdom of God.

    Why you bring up B.B.Warfield at every opportunity to slam him -- I'll never figure out.You better thank the Lord that He raised up such a Bible scholar.His keen intellect and strong faith in our Lord made the Higher Critics scramble for cover.They couldn't intelligently respond to his critiques.Warfield was as orthodox as they come.You should be ashamed.
     
  8. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Maiden" instead of "virgin" is actually a better rendering of one verse in Scripture, in the context.

    Uh- unfortunately, that verse is not found in the NT.

    Oh wait!

    Sorry!

    Wrong thread. :D

    Ed
     
  9. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    I fully agree with most of this.

    The lead trio of John Wycliffe, John Purvey and Nicholas de Hereford, just as the trio of William Tyndale, Miles Coverdale and John Rogers, would have easily matched the abilities of any three translators of the KJV, or any other version of Scripture in history. And both these trios had far less to work and draw from, as well, than the KJV translators. And the KJV translators had far less to draw from that do any translation teams these days.

    I am already on record as saying that William Tyndale, John Wycliffe and John Nelson Darby are probably the three most talented and outstanding individuals at English Bible Translation in history.

    And you are basically correct as to the "slamming" of B. B. Warfield, as well. I do not agree theologically with some of the theological positions of B. B. Warfield, by any stretch. But that is far different from attacking him with some misrepresentation about inspiration, for here, he has few peers, and is as orthodox (and was as 'hated' for it) as they come.

    Princeton and the Presbyterians did not even depart the historic orthodox positions until after the death of Warfield, after which even such stalwarts as Machen, Wilson, Allis, van Til, Young, Murray, et. al were unable to stem the tide of theological liberalism, which had basically been held in check, merely by the very presence of Warfield.

    Ed
     
  10. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Stilllearning is not alone among KJV defenders in praising Wycliffe's Bible.
    The old Wycliffe’s Bible is included on the good line or preserved stream made by some KJV-only authors. Dick 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). Charles Keen wrote that “he [Wycliffe] translated his Bible from Jerome’s Vulgate” (Unpublished Word, Summer, 2008, p. 10). Steven White identified the Wycliffe Bible as “a translation of the Latin Vulgate into English” (White’s Dictionary, p. 62). On the other hand, Gail Riplinger claimed that it is a myth that the Wycliffe Bible came from Jerome’s Latin Vulgate (In Awe, pp. 773, 788-789).
     
  11. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    You would have to close your eyes to a lot of facts to maintain that Wycliffe's Bible was a "great Bible" because of the text from which it was translated.
     
  12. stilllearning

    stilllearning
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    2
    Hello everyone, and good morning

    I have been sick(still am), so I have let these responses pile up. Sorry

    My praise for Wycliffe’s Bible, needs to be kept in context.
    i.e. My disdain, toward English versions created in the last 100 years or so, is so strong, that I would rather muddle through an old Wycliffe Bible, than to expose myself to any of them.
    (This would also mean, ignoring or removing the Apocryphal books.)
    --------------------------------------------------
    As for why, I brought up B.B.Warfield; It was in direct response to the question.......
    “What qualities or characteristics make the Wycliffe's Bible a "great Bible?"

    As I have already said here, B.B.Warfield was a great scholar, and a great defender of the Scriptures. But in 1893, he singlehandedly, went about to change out attitudes about the Bible.
    (And on repeated occasions here, I have presented proof of what he did, and suddenly those threads seems to die off.)
    --------------------------------------------------
    -THE FRUIT OF WARFIELD’S MISTAKE-
    For the last eight months or so, I have been discussing the Bible with all of you, and have repeatedly been told by almost everyone here, that “no English version is perfect”.

    My response to this statement, has been;
    “I am sorry that you think that God, has allowed His Word to be lost”.
    And just like clockwork, you would deny, that you are saying that, but this is what you are really saying.

    Well it is B.B.Warfield, who is responsible for convincing you that God’s Word has been lost; Because that is what he said.
    In 1893 he stated, that “no copy of the originals”, can any longer be considered as “inspired”; That only the originals were inspired! (And the originals no longer existed!)

    Because of B.B.Warfield’s standing, as such a great scholar, this statement dealt a devastating blow to the Church’s attitude about the Bible.

    Before Warfield, God’s people(as a rule), were standing upon the Bible, as God’s perfectly preserved Word. There was no KJV controversy, because people new that it was the accurate copies of the original manuscripts, that backed up their Bible(in what ever language they spoke).

    But now, the rule, has become the exception; Most believers have been convinced that they can not trust their Bible, so they are forced to study through several different Bibles, looking for “a feeling” about what God is trying to say to them.

    I praise the Lord, that I do not have to trust in “a feeling”, because I trust in God’s Word.
    --------------------------------------------------
    Some have said, that I should be ashamed, for the things that I have said about B.B.Warfield.
    But in reality, they should be ashamed, for the things that they are saying about God’s Word, simply because B.B.Warfield, said that is was so.
     
  13. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    So, when was the last time your read through the Wycliffe version?
     
  14. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    I've spoken of this before -- they didn't know the original languages -- did they? I thought it was evident that they only knew Latin and their native tongue of English.I know they were limited to the Latin Vulgate to do their translations.Were the original languages even being taught in their time?When they were going to University did they have any courses in Greek or Hebrew?

    I haven't found any evidence to suggest that they had talents in this respect anywhere near that of William Tyndale.

    Ed,do you have the entire Bible translated by Darby -- both Old and New Testaments?I just have the New Testament (from 1904)which my mom had purchased in 1944.

    His work was used by the ERV team in the 1880's.
     
  15. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, unfortunately I don't have any Darby Bible, merely accessing the on-line edition at studylight or Bible Gateway.

    G'nite, all.

    Ed
     

Share This Page

Loading...