Talk:Wycliffe's Bible

message: 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)
thread_title: Comment

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  stylistic infelicities? 

message: For the Church reaction the source given in note 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". 
I think that an accusation to Courtenay should have a better source than this if true!--Domics (talk) 06:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  unreliable source 

message: "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)
replies: text: I have checked, and the current version does not now have this text.Rick Jelliffe (talk) 08:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  first sentence: 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Should there be attribution for the illiteracy comment? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  PDFs of bible 

message: 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)
thread_title: Alternative Attribution

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Authorization

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Lollardy and censorship

message: 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)
thread_title:  Article Name