Talk:Wycliffe's Bible

Comment

Ayenbite of Inwyt exists only in one manuscript, in the British Musuem. The Prick of Conscience is another work (currently without a page)). JoeBlogsDord 22:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

stylistic infelicities?

I am not convinced that the example given Of Gen.1.3 really shows a stylistic infelicity in its second redaction. The use of "be" as a subjunctive with preceding subject is well-attested even as late as Shakespeare ("Mine be thy love" = "Let thy love be mine"). Is there any reason to believe that this construction was not fully idiomatic in Wycliffe's time? A comparison to the King James version is inappropriate, since the King James version appeared over 200 years later. Rilkas (talk) 23:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, to revive an old thread. But it is a sign, I think, of a more deeper anachronism, which is the idea that Wycliffe's versions (especially his first) were really intended to exist independently of the Latin, rather than being in some way tethered to the Latin texts, and getting their authority and perceived reliablity from their clear fidelity to the Latin. If it, especially the first version, was intended as glosses to an external Vulgate then complaining about its strange sentence structure misses the point. It would be better to judge the success of the translation by taking the idiosyncrasies as evidence of the original intent and method, rather than as flaws against post-Reformation ideals of idiomatic vernacular private bibles derivable from the Greek. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 05:31, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia Project-English Lit I

Our group has chosen to edit and develop the Wikipedia entry on John Wycliffe’s Bible. From first glance, we were able to tell that the page had insufficient information on this topic. Upon further investigation, we learned that there were certain aspects of the topic that were neglected or, in our eyes, not fully developed.

The Wikipedia page did not include anything about Wycliffe’s theology, or much detail beyond its translation. Nothing about the Bible’s format is mentioned (i.e. syntax of scriptures, differences in content from the other known biblical translations, method of presentation, etc.) and we believe it would be beneficial to add this to the page in order to help the reader develop an understanding of the bible as a whole. Currently, the Wikipedia page lists very minimal details about the history of Wycliffe’s translation. It also does not include many details about Wycliffe’s life that may pertain to the creation of the Bible. There is only an uncategorized block of information, and we would like to add more organized categories about the bible’s linguistic and historical influences to the page. This way, there will be more background and context to the page, rather than just scant information about translations and reactions to the bible, itself.

Blackinknight (talk) 21:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)Blackinknight

I'm sure you mean well, but much of the content now being added is not sourced, and is not encyclopaedic. It's a lot of original research and if you will forgive me for being blunt, it sounds like a high-school research paper. -- Evertype·✆ 10:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Y I think the current article has improvements in most of the areas mentioned. However, material on "linguistic and historical influences" is more difficult, because Middle English had only just emerged so there was not much history as a language in its own right: I think there is scope for example to mention the difficulty of translation into language that does not have theological terminology etc.

The problem is that the Middle English Bibles represent the point at which the oral translations (e.g. at Mass, at catechesis, by travelling preachers, e tc) were solidified into writing: we simply don't know which of the EV and LV (and Paues) vocabularies were the common oral translation of the time and which were new to these bibles. We don't even know, really, who made these translations, what their motivations and theology, or whether there was prior translations of books that have been lost to history (by the closure of monasteries, by the English Civil War, etc.): there has been a lot of speculation solidified into the mythic figure of Wycliffe.

One of the other issues at play in the comment above may be an expectation that the translation itself was heretical/contentious, which is hard to sustain: instead modern historians seem to be more agreed that it was the Lollard/Wycliffean additions (such as in the so-called General Prolog, which has major historical reasons to doubt its...err...accuracy) that caused the state's ire. However, most of the surviving Bibles don't have any heretical material like the GP, and instead have paratexts to fit into the Calendar of the Mass, and were most likely owned by priests who wanted to make their life easier for preparation of sermons, not by back-woods Lollards. So the lack of details on the heretical/contentious material in the translation is not a flaw in the article, but a flawed assumption that this was the reason for the suppression, IYSWIM. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 08:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Apart from that it mentions 14th century opposition to the "British Parliament" which only came into existence in the 18th century, and would've been unimaginable to England's Revolting Peasants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.72.249.12 (talk) 22:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Y The current version of the article does not say British, and links to Parliament of England. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 08:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

unreliable source

For the Church reaction [1]the source given in note[2] is Living Word Bible Church site a site from a "small independent Christian Church".
I think that this source does not respect WP rules.. For example the site contains a page about Evolution where we read "Would You Believe It! I asked a monkey if he believed in it, but he just shook his head.He said it was just a fairy tale put out by foolish men". [3]
I think that an accusation to Courtenay should have a better source than this if true!--Domics (talk) 06:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Y I have removed that citation. This is because 1) there is an alternative citation that is good enough, 2) the citation is not to current media (e.g. the Gary J. Hall book on Amazon) and not enough detail (e.g. author etc.)-I note that the Amazon metadata could be used instead of the church website, 3) the source is a self-published work (which is not to say that it is wrong in its facts, it just goes to the value as a WP:OS), and 4) the purpose of the book is evangelical rather than academic (which is not to say that is wrong, it just goes to the value as a WP:OS), 5) there is a quite negative review about anti-Catholic bias (on Amazon) that suggests it might be better to avoid due to contentiousness (which is not to say that it is wrong,...etc.). Rick Jelliffe (talk) 08:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

first sentence:

"at the might of"? did i miss a memo? i can usually parse even slight mistranslations-to-English, but i'm drawing a blank here.184.78.160.151 (talk) 11:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Y I have checked, and the current version does not now have this text.Rick Jelliffe (talk) 08:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Should there be attribution for the illiteracy comment?

"people mainly heard the Bible at church since they did not know how to read" I don't know offhand the functional illiteracy rate at the time, in, say Yorkshire in England, as compared to today in, say, Detroit, Michigan. I'd wager that literacy rates are up, but the statement seems informal and needing attribution. Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host (talk) 17:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Y I have re-arranged and added some material on literacy. Bob's mention of "functional" literacy is well made: this is especially so in the case of the trilingual English society, where males and females had different education paths. Unfortunately, the destruction of libraries under the Tudor and Puritans, and the burning of supposedly Lollard material in the 1400s, means the historical record is not complete, but there has been quite a lot of research: a merchant might be able to read and write labels for their products, to put numbers for book-keeping, and us the text to sound out some psalms they had long memorized when singing from a choir book, or to confirm word-by-word some passage they were being pointed to in the Paris Bible of a traveling Dominican explaining words, but not to read an independent new text: is that literate? Rick Jelliffe (talk) 05:44, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

PDFs of bible

The link to Internet Archive already given has EPUB and Torrent material. Here is where to find PDFs in 4 volumes from Robarts, as well as other works by Wycliff. https://archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22Wycliffe%2C%20John%2C%20d.%201384%22%20robarts 100.15.138.239 (talk) 16:21, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit Lead (lede)

The lede for the article did not match Wikipedia editorial guidelines: it was too long and contained material that was not in the body. I have restructured it accordingly, moving a lot of the material to where it seems to belong in the body, but without attempting to change the information. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 14:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

There is an odd sentence in the lede. I think the original writer was conflating two things: 1) Because relatively few people could read Latin, and 2) Though relatively few people could read anything.

Though relatively few people could read at this time, Wycliffe's idea was to translate the Bible into the vernacular, saying "it helpeth Christian men to study the Gospel in that tongue in which they know best Christ's sentence"

But putting it that way makes a non-sequitur: if relatively few people could read anything, why would translating the bible help them study? So I have adjusted it to say

 As relatively few people could read unfamiliar Latin passages, and many could read Middle English more adequately, , ...

This fixes the non-sequitur, aligns it with the article contents better, and reflects modern scholarship about the rise of the more literate middle class from the mid 1300s. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 06:06, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Alternative Attribution

I have added a little section about the recent alternative attribution by a large number of scholars, as documented in the Kelly book.

The existence of the little-known Paues Middle English New Testament is also evidence that we really don't know much about what was going on in that period.

Because Kelly's is credible, though not completely accepted, historical work (I have read 7 academic reviews in JSTOR which all treat it seriously: as credible in critiquing the old consensus but needing more evidence for its alternative) I think it may be useful to progressively move the article away from the Victorian consensus (let alone Foxe's story of Wycliff doing it all himself.) In order to do that, we should start referring to the NPOV term "Middle English Bible" whereever there is no relevance to Wycliff. But mainly we need to be more careful about over-stating the case.

This is one area where it is easy for one's own world-view to force unwarranted conclusions: for example, in the lede is a quote where Wycliff (is it?) says (where? one source says "a letter"?) it is useful to study the Bible in the vernacular (is that accurate?). This quote is used, in some books, as proof that he was involved in a translation effort, but that is not actually anywhere in what he says. So I think it is better to be a bit more tentative and circumspect about the history.

I think also there is room to try to use the terms "Wycliffite MEBs" (i.e. having the so-called General Prolog Four and Twenty Books) and "non-Wycliffite MEBs" (i.e. not having that material.) Kelly points to the non-Wycliffite MEBs being in wide use in parishes in the first half of the 1400s. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 07:31, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Authorization

The current text has a sentence: "Although unauthorised, the work was popular."

This seems quite simplistic about authorization, and suggests an ahistoric uniformity:

• when the Wycliff bibles were first produced, no authorization was necessary (indeed, to the extent that it was the product of theologians connected to a catholic university, it had its own authority)
• the Arundel's 1408 Oxford Convocation did not ban the Wyclyff bibles, unless they contained wycliffite material (such as the GP): it required authorization of new English translations (by the university theologians) but possession or preaching of Lollard material required authorization by the Bishop. It seems that most Wycliff bibles, without the full GP, were owned by parish priests and preachers (and used to help prepare sermons.)
• later (by 1458) the overzealous authorities would take mere possession of an English language bible (by someone they wanted to suppress) as evidence of Lollardy.

I suggest a better sentence would be "The LV translation was popular, though possession by suspected Lollards became increasingly fraught as the 15th century progressed." Rick Jelliffe (talk) 05:27, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Lollardy and censorship

Similarly, there is a sentence "consequently, manuscripts of the Wycliffe translations, which when inscribed with a date always purport to precede 1409, the date of the ban, circulated freely and were widely used by clergy and laity."

It would be good to get some academic WP:RS on this, as it smells a little mangled to me. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 06:34, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

The current text has phrases like this:

• "distinguish the banned version "
• "1409, the date of the ban,"
• "Owning an English Bible was effectively prohibited"

All these misprepresent the "ban": what was banned was 1) Lollard texts 2) unauthorized new translations. What was not banned were the "Wycliffe" translations without offending material. But if someone said "I have nothing to do with Lollardy" and had even an orthodox Bible, they would certainly be questioned further, from what I gather, not because the bible was banned but because it was relevant to checking out their story: were they secretly part of this movement that, it was feared, was going around killing bishops and potentially causing civil war. One paper I read mentioned that the measures were effectively prohibitions, for cautious people, so I don't have a problem with that; but it still makes "ban" the wrong word.

What might be a better word? I guess "1409, the date of the restriction" Any ideas? Rick Jelliffe (talk) 04:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

It's probably best to rewrite these passages to provide fuller historical context, rather than just making small tweaks to the existing wording. I appreciate the detailed explanations you've given here, and I think you should incorporate them into the article itself! Ghosts of Europa (talk) 19:27, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Y I will do so: perhaps saying "ban on new translation" where it is appropriate would be better. The material about bans tends to be uncited, since it is has this mythical overlay: more citations needed. So I have re-written and re-arranged much of this material, to be less sloppy about "bans"; hopefully it does not go too far in the other direction. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 08:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Arundel "old serpent" quote

I am smelling a potential rat on the Arundel quote about Wycliffe: it seems strange language (and, obviously, would have to be a translation and therefore likely to be a paraphrase and therefore likely to be expressed NonNPOV.)

But the main thing wrong is the inconsistency in attribution. So far I have found attributions from 1395, 1411, 1412, 1414, and even 1421 (which is remarkable, as its addressee had been dead by 3 years by that stage.) Even 1414 is dubious, as AntiPope John XXIII was unpoped in February that year.

I have also found one or two variants with language that really does not make sense for the supposed ocassion (talking about adverbs to the Pope?)

Does anyone have an actual primary source, or earliest secondary source for this letter? Or is it just one of those truthy things floating around? I am going to mark it as dubious. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 15:06, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I originally added the quotation with the citation to Hargreaves, who dates it to 1411. Hargreaves was published by Cambridge University Press, while Nobles seems to be self-published, which makes me lean toward Hargreave's 1411 date vs Nobles' 1395 date. On the other hand, the Hargreaves chapter is 50 years old, so it's possible the scholarship around this quote has changed. Do you know of any more recent peer reviewed work that calls the date into question? Ghosts of Europa (talk) 19:02, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

No I don't know: I will have another look, though that starts to be WP:OR at some point...but what I have found so far is that trying to follow the trail of citations, in the expectation that sooner or later the trail will lead to the actual text of the alleged letter (e.g. in Foxe or the Vatican or whereever) --or some near-contemporary attestation of it by some third party--, but what I see is that the trail always (so far) goes cold: it just ends in the bland, uncited assertion (e.g. in some Victorian/Anglican text that is not NPOV) that the quote comes from a letter to the Pope: assertion not evidence. (Period manuscripts of Arundel do exist, and these certainly indicate a feisty turn of phrase.)

This is an particular area with 650 years of controversy and fabrications and Chinese Whispers and paraphrased translations, which means Wikipedia editors need to switch over to the "Controversial" mode where we try to balance sources and be careful about blythely accepting statements: we cannot assume academic material and books (especially from before this century) are NPOV sources, at least when it comes to quotations that cannot be verified. Modern academics, in goodwill, have to cite or quote material by the older generations of academics, and so folklore gets passed on rather than critically examined: peer review does not, it seems, sweat incidental details such as this. Yet Wikipedia should not be in the business of repeating gossip :-)

So what should editors do? IMHO Editors should default to putting in "alleged" or "supposed" or "reported" or "purported" etc about the quotes, or bring out the earliest known attestation, unless quick and dirty research leads to the source text. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 16:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Article Name

This is not a proposal to rename, yet.

But I think the title "Wycliffe's Bible" is quite poor. For the last 150 years, it has been recognize that there are two different texts (the EV series of revisions, and the LV). And these texts were rarely produce as complete Bibles, but more typically as subsets, such as a Gospel book. And (as Deansley pointed out 100 years ago), it is "old-fashioned" to view the works as translations by Wycliffe.

So modern academics do not use "Wycliffe's Bible": they use "Wyciffite Bibles" or "Wycliffite Middle English translations" etc. It seems to me that "Wycliffe's Bible" is some holdover phrase from before 150 years ago, such as might be heard during a sermon: that is fine but not accurate. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 16:36, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Dotless ies

The quotes have letters dotless ies, thorn, yogh etc because this was the orthography of the original from the sources.

A good-faith editor replaced them with dotted ies, which I then undid: I think if you want modern orthography a better way to do it is to have a parallel parenthesized quote entirely in closer-to-modern spelling and orthography: no thorns, eths, etc. I don't believe anyone will be confused that without the dot it is not an i. If they are surprised, well Middle English is not Modern English and these kind of quotes are helpful for users to get more exposure to the differences in orthography. Which is not to say that sometimes modernised orthography is not useful too. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 03:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Rest assured that I don't want modern orthography. Thorns and yoghs are fine. ı, however, is a stylistic variant of i, not a letter in its own right. If you look at the original manuscript, you'll see that the scribe alternated between the two at random: at one point he writes "spirit" and at another he writes "spırıt". It's not necessary to preserve quirks such as these. Zacwill (talk) 04:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I take your point. But this case is a list whose focus is the differences between versions of the same text. So exposing out that there is orthographic variation is useful information for readers, IMHO.

In other kinds of quotation, where the meaning of the words is the focus, then I certainly agree that it is useful to remove off-putting variation. (I almost always replace ues with vees when quoting 15/16th century printing, for example.)

The actual source I was using had no dots for these sentences in the EV: preserving this signals graphically that the EV and the LV have different provenances, and that the language or orthography were in flux: so I think there is informative value in not persuing spurious consistency in this case, so that users who are coming to Middle English anew get friendly exposure (if they notice.)...I would prefer to have used a font that was more era-representative too, actually (e.g. Textura quadrata for Wycliff, some other blackletter for Tyndale, etc.)

All that being said, if it really bugs you, feel free to go ahead and revert my reversion. Is there is a Wikipedia editorial guideline about this, I wonder? Rick Jelliffe (talk) 08:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)