The history of the English Bible is a tale of triumph and tragedy. No literary work has had so much influence on the English language as the translation of the Bible.
Yet, the cost for providing the English speaking people with a Bible must be counted in the blood of the men who sought to translate it. William Tyndale, John Rogers, Thomas Cromwell and countless others gave their lives in the early translation period.
Half a century earlier, one man dared to challenge traditional Church authority. Without his labor medieval England would have languished in a Latin Bible read only by the highly educated. His vision brought the triumph of the Bible in the language of the people. That man is John Wycliffe, the morning star of the Reformation. [1]
English Bibles Before Wycliffe
Due to the work of Gregory the Greek and the natural spread of Christianity westward from Rome, England converted to Christianity in the sixth and seventh centuries. Her people however, did not cry out for a copy of the Scriptures in their own tongue. Rather, the medieval Englishman viewed the Bible as only accessible to the learned or elite of society. The duty of the clergy and priests was to read the Bible in the tongue of mother Rome. For the laity, among whom Latin was virtually unknown, the Bible was a closed book. Following along in the church services was very difficult and to read the Bible was impossible. [2]
Most pre-printing press Bibles were large folio volumes in hand written Latin, awkward to handle and expensive to produce. Many clergy rarely saw an entire Bible and only a select few could read it. Considering these obstacles it is no wonder the Bible in the language of the masses existed only in the minds of the visionaries.
Nevertheless, the common man began to seek a copy of the Scriptures in his own language. His first copies appeared as fragmented biblical texts which he could quote as oracles from God. Only later did he conceive of the Bible being used as the rule of life.
Distribution of these biblical texts was aided by the Biblia Pauperum. Illustrated texts with elaborate biblical scenes enabled the poor to glimpse into biblical events. Metrical verses and poetical paraphrases of smaller Scriptural portions also aided the spreading of biblical truth. Caedmon (died c680), a common monastery laborer in Yorkshire, was one of the first to record some of these paraphrases. Bede, the historian, records one of Caedmon’s verses:
We are now to praise
The maker of the heavenly kingdom,
The power of the creator and his counsel,
The deeds of the Father of Glory.
How He, being the eternal God,
Became the author of all miracles,
Who first, as almighty preserver of the human race,
Created heaven for the sons of men
As the roof of the houses, and next to earth. [3]
The earliest extant portion of the Bible in the English language belongs to a word-for-word translation of a Latin Psalter dating about the ninth century. [4] Eight Anglo-Saxon manuscripts of the Gospels dating the tenth and eleventh centuries also bear witness to early translations of biblical texts.
A common practice during this time was the placing of literal English renderings into the Latin Text. Called ‘glossing’, it was an Anglo-Saxon method of pedagogy, a way of introducing the Scriptures in the vernacular and memorizing the Latin text. The natural evolution of language and the ever so slight revival of interest in Scriptures paved the way for the complete Bible. John 3:16 in an Anglo-Saxon manuscript dating about 955 A.D. demonstrates the difference a thousand years has made in the English language:
God lufode middan-eard swa’, daet he sealde his
‘an-cennedan sunu, daet nan ne forweorde de on hine
gelyfp, ac haebbe dact ‘ece lif. [5]
The English language without written form changed radically after the Norman conquest of 1066. Invaders brought their Norman French and declared it the official language of England. As French spread and Latin remained the language of the Church and schools, the old English (Anglo-Saxon) slipped to a place of inferiority. [6] Very few great English works were written and those that exist show a developing language.
The Anglo-Norman vernacular which had developed in the mid-twelfth century was being replaced by a genuine English language early in the fourteenth century. [7] The emergence of an English language provided an opportunity for a translation of the Scriptures. The laity, discontent with the claims of the Roman church, refused to accept the Church as supreme. France and England’s attempts to unite over their support of popes, Urban and Clement, brought the respect of the Church to an all time low. The tension and unrest led many to question the authority of the church. England, in an age immortalized by Chaucer, was finally ready for the Scriptures.
John Wycliffe, Master Translator
During this period of unrest John Wycliffe (c1330–1384) appeared on the scene as the ‘man of the hour’. His evaluation of the religious climate convinced him of the need to turn to the Scriptures as the paramount rule of life. No longer was Scripture to be used as oracles; Scripture was to be obeyed. This meant, then, that everyone must have his own copy. As Wycliffe wrote:
Those Heretics who pretend that the laity need not know God’s law but that the knowledge which priests have had imparted to them by word of mouth is sufficient, do not deserve to be listened to. For Holy Scriptures is the faith of the Church, and the more widely its true meaning becomes known the better it will be. Therefore since the laity should know the faith, it should be taught in whatever language is most easily comprehended . . . Christ and His apostles taught the people in the language best known to them. [8]
John was born in the early 1330’s in a small village called Wycliffe-on-Tees in Yorkshire. [9] As the son of a squire and owner of a small manor, he attended Balliol College in Oxford and in 1356 completed a Bachelor of Arts at Merton College. He received his doctor of theology in 1372 or 1373. [10] By the time Wycliffe left Oxford he had been Master of Balliol College and Warden of Canterbury Hall. His studies, typical of medieval scholars, were rooted soundly in Latin.
This Latin scholar set the wheels of translation in motion without the use of the printing press. His work created a thirst for a Bible in the tongue of the common man. That thirst led to the insatiable desire for Bible translations that came to fruition in the sixteenth century.
The Wycliffe Translation (1382)
The Translators.
Hargreaves suggests the aim of the Wycliffe translators was to establish a new and all-sufficient authority in opposition to the Church. [11] Wycliffe and the Lollards [12] appealed to ‘Goddis lawe’ and ‘Christis law’ as the source of authority rather than the Church which took an unbiblical stance on many issues. The Lollards further asserted that these laws were open to all men. As Wycliffe explained, ‘It seems first that the wit of Goddis law should be taught in that tongue that is more known, for this wit is Goddis word’. [13]
Wycliffe further describes the contrasting authority with the Church this way:
‘That the New Testament is of full Authority, and open to understanding of simple men, as to the points that have been most needful to salvation . . . . That men ought to desire only the truth and freedom of the holy Gospel, and to accept man’s Law and Ordinances only in as much as they have been grounded in holy Scriptures . . . .’ [14]
Thus the production of a translation in the vernacular heightened the differences in authority with the Church.
Today many scholars believe that John Wycliffe did not directly translate all of the Bible which bears his name. The manuscript Bodley 959, once believed to be Wycliffe’s original work, states at the end of Baruch 3:20, ‘Here ends the translation of Nicolas,’ The suggestion is obvious. Nicolas and Herford, not John Wycliffe, did the translation of the Old Testament. The remainder was most likely completed by some of Wycliffe’s followers.
Wycliffe’s principles of translation can be seen in his sermons. The Old Testament, notorious for its strict literalness, is unlike Wycliffe’s free rendering in his sermons. This lends support that someone else translated the Old Testament. By contrast, the Wycliffe New Testament is more in keeping with Wycliffe’s style of translation.
The following comparison will reveal the differences between Wycliffe’s sermons, the earlier edition and the later revision. Note the contrast in style.
Luke 5:1–3
Wycliffe’s Sermons
- . . . Christ stood by the river Genazereth,
- And fisheris comen down to waishe therynne ther nettes;
- And Christ wente up into a boot that was Symonis, and preiede him to move it a litel fro the lond, and he sate and taught the people out of the boot. [15]
Early Version (Wycliffe)
- . . . he stood bisydis the stonding watir of Genasereth,
- And sygh twey boo tis stonding bisydis the stonding watir; sothli the fischeri had-den gon doun, and waischide nettis.
- Sothli he stighynge in to a boot, that was Symoundis, preiede him to lede ayen a litil fro the land; and he sittinge taught the cumpanyes fro the boot.
Later Version (Purvey)
- . . . he stood bisidis the pool of Genasereth,
- And saigh two bottis stondynge bisidis the pool; and the fischeris weren go down, and waischiden her nettis.
- And he went vp in to a boot, that was Symoundis, and preiede hym to lede italitil fro the loond; and he seet, and taughte the comapanyes fro the boot. [16]
Regardless of who actually translated the Old Testament, Wycliffe’s name became synonymous with the work. Archbishop Arundel, an avid opponent of Wycliffe, penned the following to Pope John XXIII in 1411:
This pestilent and wretched John Wyclif, of cursed memory that sone of the old serpant . . . endeavored by doctrine of Holy Church, devising—to fill up the measure of his malice—the expedient of a new translation of the Scriptures into the mother tongue. [17]
John Huss of Prague also attributed the translation to Wycliffe saying, ‘By the English it is said that Wyclif translated the whole Bible from Latin into English.’ [18]
Many scholars attribute the New Testament directly to the work of Wycliffe. Conrad Lindberg, the highly recognized scholar of the Wycliffe Bible writes:
I think it is reasonable to assume that Wycliffe undertook to translate NT himself (with or without helpers) and left OT to one or more of his disciples. This assumption would account for the inferior quality of EVI [Early Version], as we have seen it exemplified, while it preserves the possibility that Wycliffe himself had a share in the actual translation of the Bible. [19]
Lindberg’s observations are also supported by Forshall and Madden who wrote: ‘This tranlsation might probably be the work of Wycliffe himself; at least the similarity of style between the Gospels and the other parts favours the supposition.‘ [20]
The Translation.
Forshall and Madden, in their printed edition of the Wycliffe Bible in 1850, distinguished two editions. [21] The Wycliffe version was especially literal. Latin word order was maintained at the expense of clear meaning and natural English order, making the Old Testament awkward and even inaccurate in places. The masses more readily accepted Purvey’s revision because it abandoned much of the wooden literalness of Wycliffe’s version.
It is not surprising to find the first complete Bible ever translated into the English language a strict, literal translation from the Latin Vulgate. Although there were a few Greek scholars in medieval England [22] it was only natural to translate from their Latin Bible. Not until the fall of Constantinople in 1453 did fleeing Greeks enter the west and bring Greek scholarship and a revival of their language. Even then, it took a few decades for Greek to become viable for the study of Scripture.
Wycliffe’s view of Scripture as God’s work demanded a literal translation. He was protecting the sanctity of the Word as well as following the translation theory in common to his day, the practice of translating the Latin Scriptures by using glosses. The most famous of these glosses, the Lindisfarne Gospels (698), enabled the English reader to have the Latin text before him while reading a translation in English under the Latin text. The early stages of Wycliffe’s version were quite possibly glosses without the Latin text. This would explain adherence to Latin work order. [23]
To translate the Bible from Latin into English was a formidable task. Aside from glosses and some biblical books translated by Richard Rolle of Hanpole, an English hermit and mystic (1295–1349), Wycliffe did not have an example to follow. He and his co-labourers were left to their own devices. Their original plan may have included a word-for-word translation with a quick revision intended. Bodley 959 reveals a number of handwritten inserts throughout suggesting an immediate revision of its text, perhaps a common practice.
Political expediency and the lack of Hebrew and Greek scholars in England also made a translation from the Latin a necessity. Doctrinal disputes had already alienated Wycliffe and his followers from the established church. To attempt a translation from the original languages would have further alienated them from the Church, which was opposed to any English translation. A literal translation of Latin would perhaps be better accepted by those who could easily compare it with Latin.
Richard Rolle was one of the first religious authors to write in the English vernacular. He translated books very literally and word-forward. His theological writings played an important role in the doctrinal stand of the Lollards. [24] The style, influence, and popularity of Rolle’s Psalms set an excellent example for Wycliffe and his followers to emulate, hence, a Bible of similar style.
The Revised Wycliffe Translation (1388)
The Reviser.
Among Wycliffe’s friends was a devoted associate and schoJar named John Purvey (c1353–1428). Educated at Oxford, he became Wycliffe’s secretary at Lutterworth where Wycliffe was pastor. He was imprisoned for his Lollard activities in 1400 and released in 1401 after recanting under pressure. Two years later, he once again returned to the preaching of the Lollard doctrine. [25]
Perhaps Purvey has never received due credit for his labours. After all, Wycliffe’s version prepared the way for all future translations. His was the difficult task of originating the translation, Purvey only revised it. Nevertheless, the early Wycliffe version could not have accomplished what Purvey’s revision did.
Shortly after Wycliffe died, Purvey took refuge in Bristol where he began a thorough revision of the complete Bible. His emphasis on English idiom and word order enabled the revision to attain remarkable popularity. The ‘people of the plow’ had an intelligible, understandable translation.
Forshall and Madden proposed that this revision came at the suggestion of Wycliffe. They wrote:
The part translated by Herford differed in style from the rest; it was extremely literal, occasionally obscure, and sometimes incorrect; and there were other blemishes throughout incident to a first essay of this magnitude, undertaken under very unfavorable circumstances, by different persons and at different times, upon no agreed or well defined principle. These defects could not have escaped the attention of Wycliffe, and it is by no means improbably that he suggested, if he did not himself commence, a second or revised version of the whole Bible. [26]
Early students of Wycliffe’s version thought Purvey’s revision was translated before Wycliffe ever lived. This meant that Wycliffe’s version was not the first English translation. The error has been traced to the words of Thomas More (1478–1535) who, in his Dialogues, claimed to have seen copies prior to Wycliffe’s.
The whole Bible was long before his [Wycliffe’s] days by virtuous and well-learned men translated into the English tongue, and by good and godly people with devotion and soberness, well and reverently read. . . . Myself have seen and can show you Bibles, fair and old, in English, which have been known and seen by the Bishop, the diocese, and left in laymen’s hands and women’s. [27]
Thomas James also followed this thinking and Archbishop Usher assigned the data of this edition to 1290. Henry Wharton corrected it in his Auctorium to Usher’s work and became the first to assign to Wycliffe’s version the earlier date and the author of the General Prologue the same as the one translating the later edition. He erred by attributing the authorship of the Prologue to John Trevisa. [28] The James error was then adopted by Lewis who in A Complete History of the Several Translations of the Holy Bible (1723) passed it on to Baber in his reprint of Wycliffe’s version. Baber writes:
By comparing, with the contending versions, the texts of Scripture which we find quoted in English, in the various writings of Wiclif, we may safely, I conceive, pronounce that to be Wiclif’s, which bears the nearest affinity to these sacred passages, which were indisputably translated by him; and with these texts, I have found, by the collations I have made, the version have printed for Wiclif’s generally agreeing. [29]
Baber’s text was actually that of the later edition, now generally accepted as Purvey’s revision.
Wycliffe would have referred to a previous translation as a justification for his own undertaking if one had been known. Wycliffe’s silence suggests no translation of the Bible existed.
The General Prologue.
A long, general prologue accompanies the revision of the Wycliffe version. It contains fifteen chapters encouraging all men, princes, lords, justices, and common men to read the Law of God. The first nine chapters give an outline of Old Testament history; chapters 12–14 discuss the rules for interpretation used by Tichonius the Donatist; and chapter 15, the most important for our purposes, records the method used by the translator in his revision. It reads:
For these reasons and other, with common charity to save all in our realm, which God would have saved, a simple creature hath translated the Bible out of Latin into English. First, this simple creature had much travail, with divers fellows and helpers, to gather many old Bibles, and other doctors, and common glosses, and to make one Latin Bible somewhat true, and then to study it anew, the text with the gloss, and other doctors, as he might get them, specially Lyre on the Old Testament, that helped him full much in this work. The third time to counsel with old grammarians and old divines of hard words and hard sentenses (meanings), how they might best be understood and translated; the fourth time, to translate as clearly as he could to the sentence, and to have many good fellows and cunning at the correcting of the translation. First is to know, that the best translation is out of Latin into English, to translate after the sentense, and not only after the words, so that the sentense be as open, or opener, in English as in Latin, and go not so far from the letter; and if the letter may not be said in the translation, let the sentense ever be whole and open for the words ought to serve to the extent and sentense, and else the words be false and the common Latin Bibles have more need to be corrected, as many as I have seen in my life, than hath the English Bible lately translated.
Furthermore holy church approveth not only the true translation by mean [common] Christian men, steadfast in Christian faith, but also by open heretics, that did away many mysteries of Jesus Christ by guileful translation . . . . Much more lately the Church of England approved the true and whole transition by simple men that would, for no good on earth be here writing and power, put away at least truth, yea, the least letter, either title, of holy writ, that brings substance, either change. [30]
These principles Purvey used to revise the cumbersome Wycliffe version. They can be summarized as:
The first principle suggested use of the most accurate text. Because all Bibles were in handwritten form, variants were inevitable. A careful comparison of the variants including the use of commentaries, would enable one to determine the correct Latin text.
Second, Purvey believed a translator must be a competent interpreter of the Word. One cannot interpret a passage he does not understand. For interpretation, Purvey relied heavily on Nicholas of Lyra.
Purvey’s third principle called for the consultation of grammars, dictionaries and other reference works which enabled the translator to understand difficult words. He described his approach as translation according to meaning of the sense of the text rather than a literal, word-for-word translation. Finally, they had it carefully checked by holy and scholarly men.
The Date of the Prologue.
John Lewis first assigned the date of 1395 or shortly after for the writing of the Prologue. He noted several events mentioned in the Prologue that suggested this date:
By the notice here taken of the University’s reviving, A.D. 1387 an old Statute, made about 1251, ‘that hereafter no one should be’ an Inceptor in Divinity unless he had first completed his Acts in the Liberal Sciences . . . . Feuds and bloody skirmishes betwixt the Northern and Sothern Scholars, in which a great many of both sides lost their lives (1388–1389] . . . conclusions or reformations . . . exhibited by the Lollards or followers of Wiclif, to the Parliament which was summoned . . . A.D. 1395. [31]
Baber likewise accepted the date of 1395, He added to Lewis’ evidence by pointing out that in chapter 25 the author mentions a translation in English prior to his own version. This could only be that of Wycliffe. [32]
Forshall and Madden argued extensively that both Lewis and Baber were in error. They dated the Prologue in the Spring of 1388. Although they recognized that the strongest argument was the dating of Twelve Conclusions of the Lollards in 1395, they ignored the argument by saying:
But the terms used imply specific charges or proceedings, rather than such a general allegation of the evils arising from vows of chastity as the third of the Lollard conclusions exhibits. Imputations of this nature were, no doubt, frequent among those opposed to the celibacy of the clergy, and might very probably have been brought under the nature of parliament previously to 1395. [33]
Their argument is unconvincing. The statement in the prologue reads, ‘The first grete synne is generaly in the Vniuersite, as men dreden and seen at ize; the ij orrible synne is sodomye and strong mayntenaunce thereof, as it is knowen to many persones of the reume, and at the last parlement.’ [34] If the last parliament is a reference to the parliament of 1395, it provides strong evidence for the date of the prologue as 1395.
Deanesly points out that the wording of the General Prologue is actually borrowed from the Twelve Conclusions of 1395. ‘The thirdde conclusiun, sorwful to here, is that the law of continence annexyd to presthod, that is preiudys of simmen was first ordeynid, induceth sodomie in al holy Chirche ….’ [35] Deanesly continues by noting there is no record of a Lollard parliamentary agitation between 1385 and 1410, except 1395. In contrast with 1395, no charge of sodomy was brought in these agitations. [36]
Deanesly’s conclusion commends itself to the evidence: ‘The General Prologue was thus certainly written soon after Jan.–Feb. 1395, and before the next parliament of Jan.–Feb. 1397.’ [37] The General Prologue is usually associated with Purvey’s revision. It appears to list the principles used in the production of the revised version rather than Wycliffe’s original translation. Several evidences support this conclusion.
First, Forshall and Madden collated 170 manuscripts of the Wycliffe Bible, of which only ten had the General Prologue, all attached to Purvey’s revision. To find only ten manuscripts of the prologue is not surprising. It was very long and made a Bible extra bulky. It was also not essential to the Bible’s usefulness.
Secondly, Deanesly points out that the sentence structure of the later version agrees with the translation method described in the prologue. [38] It specifically discloses the version as a translation according to the meaning and not according to the letter. This description fits the differences between the versions. Chapter fifteen of the prologue reads, ‘First it is to knowe, that the best translating is out of Latin into English, to translate after the sentense [meaning], and not oneli aftir the wordis, so that the sentense be as opin, either openere, in English as in Latyn …. ‘ [39]
Third, if the Prologue was originally part of the revised Wycliffe translation, then its authorship points toward John Purvey, the only one of the Lollards who, at that time, had sufficient scholarship to write such a work. He also was the only one of the Oxford Lollards who had not recanted by 1395. [40]
Fourth, Purvey was Wycliffe’s personal secretary and worked with him closely on the first version. This relationship makes his authorship of the revised version and prologue a natural conclusion. In general, Purvey supported the translations of biblical materials from Latin to English. [41]
Fifth, a manuscript in Dublin (Purvey’s Ms. 75) has a monogram in which the name’ J. Pervie’ occurs. The manuscript, dated about 1427, contains the New Testament in the early version and is followed by the General Prologue. Various prologues to individual books from the later version were inserted in spaces left blank by the original scribes. The text was also corrected in the margins and between the lines. [42] These additions could not be earlier than 1427. Although this is not direct support for Purvey’s authorship, it does demonstrate the connection between Purvey and the Prologue.
Forshall and Madden examined Purvey’s Ms.75 and concluded the prologues of the individual books were in Purvey’s own handwriting. They considered this further evidence of Purvey’s manuscript authorship of the General Prologue. [43]
Finally, the most important support for Purvey’s authorship is its identification with this work Thirty-seven Articles Against Corruptions in the Church. Written prior to 1395, these articles had the style, language, arguments, manner of quotation and sources so close to the General Prologue that Forshall and Madden were forced to conclude they were done by the same writer. [44]
To sum up: Purvey wrote the Prologue and was the author of the revised version.
Popularity of the Wycliffe Bible
As one might expect, the arrival of a Bible in the English tongue was not embraced by all. The English Catholic Church’s opposition to a vernacular translation was predictable. [45] The authority of the priests rested solely in the Church. The Church’s grasp on the laity depended on biblical ignorance. Therefore, they vehemently opposed Wycliffe’s transition. Any free use of the Bible in worship and thought signaled a deep threat to the Church’s authority.
The Oxford council summoned in 1407–08 by Thomas Arundel, Archbishop of Canterbury, restated the restriction of English translations. John Fox quotes the seventh enactment:
. . . We therefore decree and ordain, that no man, hereafter, by his own authority translate any text of the Scripture into English or any other tongue, by way of a book, libel, or treatise, and that no man ready any such book, or treatise, now lately set forth in the time of John Wickliff, or since, or hereafter to be set forth, in part or in whole, privily or apertly, upon pair of greater excommunication, unt1 the said translation be allowed by the ordinary of the place, or, if the case so required, by the council provincial. He that shall do contrary to this, shall likewise be punished as a favourer of error and heresy. [46]
Certain priests and rich men received license to own an English Bible but anyone possessing a Wycliffe Bible was tried as a heretic. In spite of bitter opposition the reading of the English Bible continued. There are today, 600 years later, about 200 known copies of the Wycliffe Bible. The large number testifies to the widespread distribution of the Bible during those early years.
Bruce writes:
But many others, who could not obtain official permission, refused to be deprived of the opportunity of reading the scriptures in their own tongue, and met together in small groups to read and discuss them together. The house-meeting for reading the Bible in this way became a tradition that still lives on in English-speaking lands (as well as elsewhere), but in the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries those who attended such groups did so at the risk of liberty and even of life itself. [47]
John Wycliffe’s version closed the manuscript period of the Bible. In 1450 Joann Gutenberg invented the printing press and began to produce assembly-line Bibles. For seventy years prior to this, the only English Bible was that produced by John Wycliffe and revised by John Purvey. They had opened the door for William Tyndale and the sixteenth-century multiplication of English translations, an age we might describe as the ‘Golden Age of English Testaments’.
Modern Reprints of the Wycliffe Bible
The New Testament Translated Out of the Latin Vulgate by John Wiclif … About 1378 to Which Is Praefixt a History of the Several Translations of the H. Bible and N. Testament …. by John Lewis, London, John March, 1731.
The earliest printed edition of the Wycliffe Bible was printed 349 years after the work of Wycliffe. John Lewis prepared the New Testament from two manuscripts. Both of them were Purvey’s revisions. One of the manuscripts belonged to Lewis (Bodl Gough, Eccl. Top. 5 early 15th cent.), a vellum quarto from which he published the four gospels. The other manuscript was written about 1420. Lewis used it to transcribe the Epistles, Acts, and Revelation.44 Because only 160 copies were issued, a copy existing today is quite scarce.
The New Testament Translated From the Latin in the Year 1380 by John Wiclif, D.D. by Henry Hervey Baber, London, Richard Edwards, 1810. A reprint of Lewis’ 1731 edition appeared in 1810.
Baber’s reason for production was twofold:
- In order for theologians to compare the different English translations and ‘become luminous from the better apprehension of other’s.’
- In order for the philologist to trace the gradual formation of the vernacular tongue and the history of its progress. [48]
Baber’s work contains two important contributions, in addition to the actual reprint of Lewis’ 1731 work: His account of Wycliffe’s life and’ An Historical Account of the Saxon and English Versions of the Scripture Previous to the Opening of the XV th Century.’ He claims the latter to be the most correct account of the Bible’s earliest translations. [49] Its contribution rests primarily in the introductory matters and Baber’s glossary of obsolete words.
The English Hexapla edited by Samuel Bagster and Sons, London, Wertheimer and Co., for S. Bagster and Sons, 1841.
The English Hexapla consists of six important New Testament translations up to 1611. Included are: Wycliffe’s (1394 revision of Purvey), Tyndale of 1534, Cranmer’s Great Bible of 1539, Whittingham’s N.T. of 1557, the Rheims of 1582, and the King James Version of 1611. The polyglott is preceeded by 160 pages of introductory material written by S. P. Tregelles.
The text is the same Purvey revision published by John Lewis and reprinted by Baber in 1810. Again, the value of this reprint lies not in the text but in the introduction by Tregelles. His account of the life and version of Wycliffe is superb.
The New Testament in English Translated by John Wycliffe circa MCCCLXXX. Charles Winningham for William Pickering, Piccadilly, 1848.
This is the first printed edition of the earlier version of the Wycliffe New Testament ‘now printed from a contemporary manuscript formerly in the Monastery of Sion Middlesex later in the Collection of Lea Wilson.’ It is printed in black letter (Old English) giving it the flavor of the actual manuscript from which it was taken. It is a quarto measuring 24 × 16.5 centimeters. The editor recognizes this reprint as ‘Wycliffe’s first attempt, and subsequently revised and published by himself or his disciples.‘ [50]
Pickering’s edition of Wycliffe was a valuable contribution because it published the earlier version for the first time. It also pointed out a belief in two distinct versions: an earlier Wycliffe and a later revision, although it was left to Forshall and Madden to demonstrate it conclusively.
The Holy Bible, Containing the Old and New Testaments, With the Apocryphal Books in the Earliest English Versions Made With the Latin Vulgate of John Wycliffe and His Followers edited by the Rev. Josiah Forshall and Sir Frederic Madden, Oxford, at the University Press, 1850
Undoubtedly this is the Magnus Opus of the Wycliffe reprints. This first printed edition of the complete Wycliffe Version of the Bible was published in four large volumes measuring 33 × 26 cm. An elaborate preface discussing authorship, date and value is followed by a descriptive list of 170 Wycliffe manuscripts personally inspected by Forshall and Madden. It was an attempt to produce an accurate critical text of the Wycliffe Bible. Extensive footnotes mark the variant readings. Both the Wycliffe early version and the Purvey revision lay side by side. Forshall and Madden in the preface present conclusive evidence for two distinct Wycliffe versions. This work laid to rest any thought of the idea that a translation existed prior to the work of Wycliffe.
The Gothic and Anglo Saxon Gospels in Parallel Columns With the Versions of Wycliffe and Tyndale, by the Rev. Joseph Bosworth, London, John Russell Smith, 1865.
The Bosworth edition was based on the first version, collated with the original manuscript in the Bodelian Library, Douce 369. This manuscript was written on Vellum, in large folios of two columns of 486 folios, consisting of two distinct manuscripts, both imperfect. The first part is written with marginal corrections in three different hands all before 1390. [51] From folio 251 to the end, it contains the text of the Gospels written in a much clumsier hand—the same hand which corrects the earlier part. [52]
The Douce 369 manuscript is noteworthy because of the reference to Nickaloy de Herford as the ‘Wyclicit translaciom’. It is broken off at exactly the same place (Baruch 3:20) as Bodley (Gen. to Baruch 3:20) where Nicholas Herford appears as the translator. Most modern scholars use this reference as evidence supporting Herford’s contribution as translator of the earlier versions of the Old Testament rather than Wycliffe himself.
Other reprints of Forshall and Madden and of Lewis exist, but the above list represents the major editions of the printed texts.
Modern Facsimile of Wycliffe New Testament
The New Testament in English Translated by John Wycliffe MCCCLXXXII. Revised by John Purvey MCCCLXXXVIII. Sexcentenary Edition: First exact facsimile of the First English Bible with introduction by Donald L. Brake from Rawlinson 259, Portland, Oregon, International Bible Publications, 1986.
This is the first exact facsimile of a Wycliffe Bible manuscript ever printed. The occasion for the project is the 600th anniversary of John Purvey’s revision of the Wycliffe version. The facsimile is produced from manuscript Rawlinson 259 in the Bodleian library, the revised text by John Purvey.
Rawlinson 259 is without elaborate illumination, so characteristic of many biblical manuscripts of this period. It was chosen to represent the poor followers of Wycliffe and the more typical Bible read by the masses. Wycliffe dreamed of every man possessing a copy of the Scripture to read. Although the non-illuminated production of manuscripts were still expensive to produce, the common man had hope of owning a copy for himself. The New Testament was chosen over the complete Bible because many scholars today feel John Wycliffe had an active part in the translating of the New Testament. Also, to find a complete manuscript of the whole Bible for reproduction is very difficult and the cost is prohibitive. Those desiring the entire Bible should purchase Forshall and Madden’s edition. Forshall and Madden have given the most extensive description of Rawlinson 259 and I quote here in full.
Rawlinson C. 259, (508). Vellum, in small 4, 2 cols., ff. 252, written perhaps about 1430; on the first fly leaf, in Hearne ‘s hand, ‘Suum cuiq. Tho. Hearne, Oct. 9, 1719. I have made mention of this this Ms. in my preface to Camden’s Elix (Oxon. 1717, p. 123). It then belong’d to Edw. Etterick, Esq., Fellow of New College. I purchas’d it since his death;’ and on the second fly leaf. ‘The New Testament, in Old English, commonly called Wicliff’s Translation,’ etc. On the verso of this leaf is written ‘Scriptus hie liber circa A.D. 1370, nam quae notantur paginis a & videntur tum recentia ;’ beneath, in the hand of Thomas Baker, ‘Scriptum fuisse hunc librum exploratum habeo, A.O. 1345 ;’ and lower, ‘Sed amicus noster egregie falliture, aut ego fallor’. lt is of this copy Lewis speaks, Hist. of Translations of the Bible, p. 26 n. ed. 1821. In a Kalendar prefixed, which is very neatly written with rubicated letters, etc. is noted by the same original hand, on the lower margin of fol. 1, Anno dni MCCC.lxi in festo sci Mauri abbatis erat ventus valid us; and again, on lower margin of fol. 5, Anno dni mcccxlviii in festo sci Michaelis incipiebat prima pestilencia Land.
The books of the New Testament, in the later version, with the usual prologues. There are two prologues to the Romans, of which the first is of the earlier version. Then ‘the lessons and pistlis of the oolde law, that ben rad in the chirche bi al the zeer’, which seems to be of the later version. On the fly leaves at the end are various historical memoranda, in the years 1531, 1553, 1554, and 1558. [53]
Rawlinson 259 in itself is not particularly important to scholarship. It does provide a good example of the orthography and paleography of late 14th, early 15th century English. For the collector of rare and ancient English works it provides a valuable example of a developmental stage in the English language. For the Bible collector, it provides an exact facsimile of the first complete Bible ever translated into the English language, one done nearly 70 years before the invention of printing and the Gutenberg Bible. All collectors of the early translations of the English Bible desire to have a Wycliffe Bible. Today, however, they are more scarce than in Wycliffe’s day. The cost of an original Wycliffe is comparable to buying a house. The next best option is to possess an exact facsimile.
For these reasons, it is hoped that this project will make a positive contribution to the world of collecting, both of English literature and the Bible.
Donald L. Brake,
Portland, Oregon,
October, 1986
Footnotes
[1] It needs to be remembered that Wycliffe’s influence on the reformation stands unquestioned. His views on the authority of the Roman Church, eucharist, and holiness of life, were just a few doctrines that earned him the title ‘Morning Star of the Reformation.’ His influence continued through his faithful followers called “the Lollards” and later through the followers of John Huss. For our purposes we will investigate his influence on history through his translation of the English Bible only.
[2] Geddes MacGregor, The Bible in the Making, (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1959), p. 104.
[3] The Venerable Bede, The Ecclesiastical History of the English Nation, (New York: E. P. Dutton and Co., 1910), iv : 24.
[4] A. S. Herbert, Historical Catalogue of Printed Editions of the English Bible 1525–1961, (New York: The American Bible Society, 1968), p. xxvi.
[5] Joseph Bosworth, The Gothic and Anglo-Saxon Gospels in Parallel Columns with the Version of Wycliffe and Tyndale, (London: John Russell Smith, 1865), p. 452–53.
[6] Charles C. Butterworth, The Literary Lineage of the King James Bible 1340–1611, (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1941), p. 28
[7] Geoffrey Shephert, ‘English Versions of the Scriptures Before Wyclif’, The Cambridge History of The Bible, G. W. H. Lampe, ed., (Cambridge: At the University Press, 1969), 2, 379.
[8] John Wycliffe, Speculum Secularium Dominorum, Opera Minora, (London, Wycliff Society, John Loserth, ed., 1913), p. 74.
[9] Bodleian Library, Wyclif and His Followers, (Oxford: Bodleian Library, 1983), p. 9.
[10] Bodleian Library, p. 13.
[11] Henry Hargreaves, ‘The Wycliffite Versions,’ The Cambridge History of the Bible, G . W. H. Lampe, ed., Cambridge: At the University Press, 1969), 2, 392.
[12] Lollards or ‘Poor Preachers’ as they were known, were responsible for the spread of Wycliffe’s teachings. Their teaching and influence in the fifteenth century extended beyond the spread of the Bible. They emphasized authority of Scripture, need for a personal relation to Christ and they attacked the Church on such issues as celibacy transubstantiation, indulgencies, and others. F. L. Cross, ed.: ‘Lollardy ,’ Dictionary of the Christian Church, (London: Oxford University Press, 1957), p . 819.
[13] Herbert E. Winn, ed., Wyclif Select English Writings, (London: Oxford University Press, 1929), p. 19.
[14] John Lewis, The History of the Life and Sufferings of . . . John Wicliffe, (London: Robert Knaplock, St. Paul’s Churchyard, 1723), p. 36.
[15] Melvin M. Cammack, John Wyclif and the English Bible, (New York: American Tract Society, 1938), p. 43
[16] Josiah Forshall, Frederic Madden, The Holy Bible Containing the Old and New Testaments . . . in the Earliest English Versions made from the Latin Vulgate by John Wycliffe and His Followers, (Oxford: At the University Press, 1850), IV, 158–59.
[17] Quoted in Hargreaves, p. 388
[18] Ibid.
[19] Conrad Lindberg, eg., MS. Bodley 959 Genesis–Baruch 3:20 in the Erlier Version of the Wycliffite Bible, (Stockhold: Almquist and Wiksell, 1969), V, 92.
[20] Forshall and Madden, I, xvi.
[21] To reduce confusion the earlier version identified by Forshall and Madden will be referred to as ‘Wycliffe’s Version’ and the later edition ‘Purvey’s Revision’.
[22] Bruce mentions Robert Gosecteste (13th cent.) as an exception and notes that Greek was taught in Oxford in 1320–21. F. F. Bruce, ‘John Wycliffe and the English Bible’, Churchman, (98, 4, 1984), p. 300.
[23] Bodi, 959, the manuscript in the Bodleian Library incorrectly believed by Forshall and Madden to have been the autographa of the Wycliffe Bible shows evidence of continual revision. Conrad Lindberg, after citing evidence of scribal work concludes, ‘All this along with translational changes (inc. transpositions) is an indication of continuous revisions’. MS. Bodley, p. 97.
[24] Margaret Deanesly, The Lollard Bible, (Cambridge: At the University Press, 1920), p. 145.
[25] Hargreaves, II, 410.
[26] Forshall and Madden, I, xx.
[27] T. Lawler, G. Marc’ hadour, R. Marius, eds., Complete Works of St. Thomas More, Dialogues, (New Haven: Yate University Press, 1984), vi,314.
[28] Forshall and Madden, I, xxi.
[29] Henry Baber, An Historical Account of the Saxon and English Versions of the Scriptures, Previously to the Opening, of the XVth Century, (London Paternoster Row, 1810), p. Lxxi.
[30] Forshall and Madden, I, 56–58.
[31] Lewis, p. 36.
[32] Baber, p. Liii.
[33] Forshall and Madden, I, xxiv.
[34] Ibid.
[35] Deanesly, p. 374.
[36] Ibid., p. 376.
[37] Ibid.
[38] Ibid., 262.
[39] Forshall and Madden, I, 57.
[40] Deanesly, p . 377.
[41] Ibid., 378.
[42] Ibid., 379.
[43] Forshall and Madden, I, xxv. It must be stated that not all accept the handwriting as Purvey’s, i.e. Hargreaves, p. 411.
[44] ‘The Thirty-Seven Articles’ are in parallel columns for comparison in Forshall and Madden, I, xxv–xxvii.
[45] Translations in the vernacular were not generally prohibited in Europe. However, translations used to popularize the reading of the Bible among the people were prohibited immediately, Deansley, p. 18.
[46] John Fox, The Acts and Monuments, (London: Seeley, Burnside, and Seeley, 1844), III, 245.
[47] Bruce, p. 305.
[48] Baber, p. IV.
[49] Ibid., p. V.
[50] Pickering, preface, no page numbering.
[51] Forshall and Madden, I, L.
[52] Ibid., I, Li.
[53] Ibid., I, XLix.Donald L. Brake (Ph.D., Dallas Theological Seminary) is Dean Emeritus of Multnomah Biblical Seminary, past president of Jerusalem University College; and is author of They Called Him Yeshua, How 30 Missing Years Changed Human History, a novel published in 2018 (with Shelly Beach); Jesus, A Visual History, Zondervan 2014 (with Todd Bolen); A Monarch’s Majestic Translation: The King James Bible, Christian Faith Pub, 2017; A Visual History of the English Bible, Baker Books 2008; A Visual History of the King James Bible, Baker Books 2011 (with Shelly Beach); A Royal Monument of English Literature 2011 (Leaf 1611 KJV); Wycliffe New Testament (facsimile) 1986, International Bible Publications.