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

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

 

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.

 

You're kiding, right? We're talkin' Wycliffe's version y'know.

 

The Vulgate (VUL) is always accurate manuscripts???

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

 

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.

 

"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.

Ed

 

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

 

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.

 

So, when was the last time your read through the Wycliffe version?

 

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.

 

No, unfortunately I don't have any Darby Bible, merely accessing the on-line edition at studylight or Bible Gateway.

G'nite, all.

Ed