Confused about Wycliffe's translation

[brianmichael]

We Catholics can read any Bible outside the Mass in our homes, but would this incude something like Wycliffe’s version?

it’s my understanding that he denied Transubstantiation and started the whole Lollard heresy, but here’s two classic tests we always look for:

Gen3:15 says “**sche **schal breke thin heed, and
thou schalt sette aspies to hir heele.”

Luke 1:28 says “And the aungel entride to hir, and seide, Heil, ful of grace; the Lord be with thee; blessid be thou among wymmen.”

Plus, his Bible has ALL the Deuteros, and every part of Esther and Daniel; his Bible’s also set up in the Vulgate’s traditional order;

how can this man be the “Morning Star of the Reformation” if his Bible has all these Catholic traits?!?

 

[NotWorthy]

Among several mis-translated phrases that backed up his theology, I understand his commentary was very anti-Catholic.

 

[NotWorthy]

Regarding the “Full of Grace” and the Deutero’s, Mary’s queenship, perpetual Virginity, and Immaculate Conception hadn’t been challenged yet. Neither had the canonicity of the Deutero’s been challenged yet, as Wycliffe’s translation pre-dated Luther, if I’m correct.

The anti-Marian protests arised with Fundamentalism, didn’t it? Something like 2-3 centuries ago?

 

[Ron_Conte]

I’m familiar with Wycliffe’s translation, I’ve read numerous verses from it, and I’ve compared those verses to the Latin. His translation is very literal and might be rightly criticized for being too literal. The literalness of the translation saves it from being influenced by his heresies. I’ve found nothing in his translation that would contradict proper Catholic doctrine (although I’ve not read it all). Interestingly, approved Catholic translations today, loose translation that use inclusive language extensively, are more offensive to God, have more doctrinal problems, and are further away from the Vatican norms for Bible translation than Wycliffe’s translation. Literal translations have far fewer problems than loose translations, so much so that a heretic like Wycliffe could produce a useful translation, despite his doctrinal errors.

 

[brianmichael]

The anti-Marian protests arised with Fundamentalism, didn’t it? Something like 2-3 centuries ago?

thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut, NW…not sure about the history of your last point, can someone answer his question?

 

[brianmichael]

I’m familiar with Wycliffe’s translation, I’ve read numerous verses from it, and I’ve compared those verses to the Latin. His translation is very literal and might be rightly criticized for being too literal. The literalness of the translation saves it from being influenced by his heresies. I’ve found nothing in his translation that would contradict proper Catholic doctrine (although I’ve not read it all). Interestingly, approved Catholic translations today, loose translation that use inclusive language extensively, are more offensive to God, have more doctrinal problems, and are further away from the Vatican norms for Bible translation than Wycliffe’s translation. Literal translations have far fewer problems than loose translations, so much so that a heretic like Wycliffe could produce a useful translation, despite his doctrinal errors.

Ron, thanks for the post. i admit i like his wordings, and you’re right about accurate literalness not influencing/enhancing your personal dogma,

but there hasn’t been enough research into his transl. to warrant its reading; i can’t recommend his transl. to anyone reading these threads…

 

[tobinatorstark]

While the Wycliffe may sound like a good Bible and it is, isn’t approved by the Catholic Church. All Bibles approved by the Church have an imprimatur and Nihil Obstat. Some just have approval of a Bishops Committee, which is still official by the Church.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

The Anti-Marian prejudice arose with the Protestant Reformation in the 16th Century. It was (and is) erroneously considered Idolatry.

There has been very much research into Wycliffe’s translation, and there are many schools of thought regarding it.

The translation that appears in Bagster’s Hexapla and Lewis’s 18th Century reprint is actually the revised and refined edition of Wycliffe’s translation that was done in the late 14th century. That edition was revised by Purvey a known Lollard heretic, and was accompanied by heretical notes and prefaces. The translation was suspect therefore as well.

Wycliffe is not the translator of the entire Bible, but most likely oversaw the project to completion, while employing other unnamed translators. It is a known fact that much of the first Wycliffe Bible’s English does not match at all Sermons attributed to Wycliffe, which quote entirely different English translation than seen in the Wycliffe #1. Although traditionally Wycliffe is given credit for the Prophet Baruch (midway) through to the New Testament. See Fr. Pope, The English Translations of the Bible 1952.

As noted already, it is slavishly literal, and uses archaic words and phrases that make it very difficult to follow. Writers of the 16th C. in England thought Wycliffe’s translation far more difficult to read than the Original Parson’s tale by Chaucer in Middle English, who is a contemporary of Wycliffe’s.

It’s interesting to note that during the course of the 14th century English went from a state of almost complete neglect, as all studies were conducted in French or Latin in the schools, till later in that century English was revived and enjoyed a sort of Renaissance with the help of works like Chaucer and Wycliffe. By the end of the 14th Century, English was taught in the schools.

Most of the nobility, scholars and clergymen already read the Bible in either French or Latin translations. Despite that circumstance however, Sir Thomas Moore and even Fox in his Book of Martyrs, freely admit that there were already extent in the English Language translations of the Scriptures available both before and after Wycliffe. Most if not all trace of them was destroyed during the English Protestant Reformation amidst the dissolution of the Monasteries, and the mad and wanton destruction of anything deemed to be associated with Popery.

 

[NotWorthy]

The Anti-Marian prejudice arose with the Protestant Reformation in the 16th Century. It was (and is) erroneously considered Idolatry.

Luther and Zwingli were very “Marian” in their ideology, I thought. Did they adjust this thinking based on their other beliefs? Or did other reformers bring the anti-Marian biases to the forefront?

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Luther and Zwingli were very “Marian” in their ideology, I thought. Did they adjust this thinking based on their other beliefs? Or did other reformers bring the anti-Marian biases to the forefront?

Yes, your point is well taken. The “anti-Marian” theology may have hit its zenith in 19th century protestantism.

But even from the beginning, the reformers were very Christo-centric in their theology, and there was no room for the Blessed Virgin Mary or the Saints in heaven, for that matter, as intercessors. This was a major shift in theology by the reformers away from Catholic teaching. Initially, they allowed Mary due honor as an important Biblical person, but certainly not someone that could be prayed to. As time wore on, Catholic homage to the Virgin Mary was seen more and more as idolatry. And indeed, in some of the Mediterranean Catholic Countries especially, their devotion was seen as excessive and superstitious.