Wycliffe Bible?

[alias235]

A long time ago, a man named John Wycliffe translated the Bible from Latin Vulgate to English. His version was the first translated into English.

I have a question, though, can English-speaking Catholics use the Wycliffe Bible over other versions?
I mean, I was debating with a few atheist commentators and found that the Wycliffe Bible didn’t have the contradictions that other English versions have.
Example:
In the New Testament a man’s daughter was dying. However in Matthew and Luke there appears a contradiction: she was dying vs. she was dead.
The New International Version says this:
[Luke 8:42]
42 because his only daughter, a girl of about twelve, was dying.
As Jesus was on his way, the crowds almost crushed him.
[Matthew 9:18]
18 While he was saying this, a synagogue leader came and knelt before him and said, “My daughter has just died. But come and put your hand on her, and she will live.”

The Wycliffe Bible says this:
[Luke 8:42]
42 for he had but one [only] daughter, almost of twelve years old, and **she was dead **[and this died]. And it befell, the while he went [while he went], he was thronged of the people.
[Matthew 9:18]
18 Whiles that Jesus spake these things to them, lo! a prince came, and worshipped him, and said [saying], Lord, my daughter is now dead; but come thou, and put thine hand on her, and she shall live [but come thou, and put thine hand upon her, and she shall live].

I’m wondering if its okay, as a Catholic, to use the Wycliffe Bible over other popular Bibles. Because it does seem to be more consistent than the other versions.
So is it?

 

[MarkThompson]

And if you want a really consistent Bible, just go through a Bible and fix all the inconsistencies. You can call it the New Consistency Version (NCV).

Seriously, a translation should be no more or less consistent than what it is based on. The Wycliffe Bible was a translation of the Vulgate, so if it lacks (apparent) inconsistencies that appear in the Vulgate and other good translations based on it (e.g., the Douay Rheims), then the problem is that someone has illegitimately “fixed” the Wycliffe Bible. That is hardly something to crow about. The same goes for the relationship between the Vulgate and the underlying Greek and Hebrew scriptures.

 

[mattwcu]

The Wycliffe Bible is not an approved translation. Wycliffe is a hero for protestants. :knight2:

 

[Khalid]

The Wycliffe Bible is not available in modern English and is not Catholic - I believe it to be stridently anti-Catholic, being used by so many groups like that founded by Jan Hus which loathed the true Church - like the Geneva Bible (although I don’t think Wyclif has the anti-Papist notes on every page like the Geneva Bible).

The “lack of contradiction” comes from harmonization - that is, tampering with the text - not due to better sources. A fully non-contradictory text would be a mark against the Bible’s authenticity, as when different people recount the same event or speech, details in the telling always differ to a point. Also, no one is going to recognize the Wycliffe Bible as a legitimate translation, especially secularists, except for fundamentalists who believe the Waldensians existed in NT times, were the “real Christians”, and then came above ground when the Baptist communion “rehabilitated” them - much like the Wiccanist myth of the ancient, suppressed wytche’s-crafte rehabilitated by Gerald Gardner in 1940.

For speaking with secularists, the NRSV is probably one of the better choices, as it’s the Bible of choice for atheists who read it anyways (due to its very anti-Christian, anti-Theist, anti-supernaturalist, liberal, politically-correct, feminist biases and translation philosophy). The most accurate is the NASB. I would personally use the ESV w/ “Apocrypha” when talking to secularists myself, not the “RSV-2CE”, because they’re going to immediately assume, “oh, it’s been corrupted for Catholics to use - why else do you need a ‘Catholic’ edition?”. A KJV can also be very useful, as most recognize it, but an educated secularist will point out the errors in its translation and the inferior manuscripts it was based on.

 

[patrick457]

The Wycliffe Bible is not available in modern English and is not Catholic - I believe it to be stridently anti-Catholic, being used by so many groups like that founded by Jan Hus which loathed the true Church - like the Geneva Bible (although I don’t think Wyclif has the anti-Papist notes on every page like the Geneva Bible).

There was really nothing problematic with the translation itself, which was, after all, a very literal, wooden translation of the Vulgate. Much of the problem stemmed from the prologue, which was apparently so Lollard to be acceptable.

In fact, it was because there was really no fault within the translation itself that English Catholics saw no problem in adopting these ‘Wycliff’ Bibles, without the heretical prologue and with fake dates (to bypass the censors), after Wycliff’s death.

Now Tyndale, on the other hand…

The “lack of contradiction” comes from harmonization - that is, tampering with the text - not due to better sources. A fully non-contradictory text would be a mark against the Bible’s authenticity, as when different people recount the same event or speech, details in the telling always differ to a point.

According to this line of reasoning, the Byzantine text-type of the NT generally counts as a tampering of the Text, doesn’t it?

Also, no one is going to recognize the Wycliffe Bible as a legitimate translation, especially secularists, except for fundamentalists who believe the Waldensians existed in NT times, were the “real Christians”, and then came above ground when the Baptist communion “rehabilitated” them - much like the Wiccanist myth of the ancient, suppressed wytche’s-crafte rehabilitated by Gerald Gardner in 1940.

And why is that?

 

[patrick457]

Note: there are actually two versions of the Wycliff Bible. The earlier version is characterized by a woodenly literal method of translating the Text, at the expense of proper grammar (think something like the original Douai-Rheims; for the record, Wycliff was actually an influence for that translation), while the later version tidies up the grammar a bit.

Here are the quotes again, in the original spelling:

Matthew 9:18: Whiles that Jhesus spak thes thingis to hem, lo! a prince cam, and worschipide hym, and seide, Lord, my douyter is now deed; but come thou, and putte thin hond on hir, and she schal lyue.

Luke 8:42 …for he hadde but one douyter almost of twelue yeer eelde, and sche was deed. And it bifel, the while he wente, he was thrungun of the puple.

I think the main issue here is one word found in Vulgate Luke: moriebatur, the third person singular imperfect active indicative of morior.

 

[Khalid]

There was really nothing problematic with the translation itself, which was, after all, a very literal, wooden translation of the Vulgate. Much of the problem stemmed from the prologue, which was apparently so Lollard to be acceptable.

In fact, it was because there was really no fault within the translation itself that English Catholics saw no problem in adopting these ‘Wycliff’ Bibles, without the heretical prologue and with fake dates (to bypass the censors), after Wycliff’s death.

Now Tyndale, on the other hand…

According to this line of reasoning, the Byzantine text-type of the NT generally counts as a tampering of the Text, doesn’t it?

And why is that?

1. If you believe the Alexandrian manuscripts to be the most authentic, yes. (I’m a supporter of the originally-Protestant “majority text” in most cases.) But, when we know what something was translated from, and see that it was translated in order to smooth over differences, while disregarding the source, it is tampering beyond a doubt.
2. Because it’s old and not mainstream, and no one has ever heard of it. Not because of the translation itself. People recognize King James, NIV, and NRSV.