Abundance of Vernacular Scriptures before Wycliff

I'm all done with this post. It's just useless...

Click to expand...

Oh. Ok, thanks for trying anyway.
tulc( )

Aye, it was useless trying to see if you could actually answer a question.

We all know that it was never going to happen anyway.

You will only believe when your able to stick your hand in the side of Our Lord, nothing more..

Click to expand...

...you do know Jesus was willing for Thomas to do that, right? And it wasn't just S.Walch who thought you hadn't answered the question.
tulc(just a thought)

tulc said:

...you do know Jesus was willing for Thomas to do that, right? And it wasn't just S.Walch who thought you hadn't answered the question.
tulc(just a thought)

Click to expand...

This is one question that can be proven by historical evidence.

Not one of these ambiguous silly arguments of implication.

I too would like to see what Wycliff did to the Bible.

It seems to me that this man was eminently qualified to translate the Bible from Latin into English....


John Wyclif (ca. 1330-84) was one of the most important and authoritative thinkers of the Middle Ages. His activity is set in the very crucial period of late Scholasticism, when the new ideas and doctrines there propounded accelerated the transition to the modern way of thought. On the one hand, he led a movement of opposition to the medieval Church and to some of its dogmas and institutions, and was a forerunner of the Reformation; on the other, he was also the most prominent English philosopher of the second half of the 14th century. His logical and ontological theories are, at the same time, the final result of the preceding realistic tradition of thought and the starting-point of the new forms of realism at the end of the Middle Ages, since many authors active during the last decades of the 14th and/or the first decades of the 15th centuries (Robert Alyngton, William Penbygull, Johannes Sharpe, William Milverley, Roger Whelpdale, John Tarteys, and Paul of Venice), were heavily influenced by his metaphysics and largely used his logical apparatus. However, his philosophical system, rigorous in its general design, contains unclear and aporetic points that his followers attempted to remove. So, although an influential thinker, Wyclif pointed to the strategy the Realists at the end of the Middle Ages were to adopt, rather than fully developed it.

John Wyclif was born near Richmond (Yorkshire) before 1330 and ordained in 1351. He spent the greater part of his life in the schools at Oxford: he was fellow of Merton in 1356, master of arts at Balliol in 1360, and doctor of divinity in 1372. He definitely left Oxford in 1381 for Lutterworth (Leicestershire), where he died on 31 December, 1384. It was not until 1374 (when he went on a diplomatic mission to Bruges) that Wyclif entered the royal service, but his connection with John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, probably dates back to 1371. His ideas on lordship and church wealth, expressed in De civili dominio (On Civil Dominion), caused in 1377 his first official condemnation by the Pope (Gregory XI), who censured nineteen articles. As has been pointed out (Leff 1967), in 1377-78 Wyclif made a swift progression from unqualified fundamentalism to a heretical view of the Church and its Sacraments. He clearly claimed the supremacy of the king over the priesthood (see for instance his De ecclesia [On the Church], between early 1378 and early 1379), and the simultaneous presence in the Eucharist of the substance of the bread and the body of Christ (De eucharistia [On the Eucharist], and De apostasia [On Apostasy], both ca. 1380). His theses would influence Jan Hus and Jerome of Prague in the 15th century. So long as he limited his attack to abuses and the wealth of the Church, he could rely on the support of a (more or less extended) part of the clergy and aristocracy, but once he dismissed the traditional doctrine of transubstantiation, his (unorthodox) theses could not be defended any more. Thus in 1382 Archbishop Courtenay had twenty-four propositions that were attributed to Wyclif condemned by a council of theologians, and could force Wyclif's followers at Oxford University to retract their views or flee. The Council of Constance (1414-18) condemned Wyclif's writings and ordered his books burned and his body removed from consecrated ground. This last order, confirmed by Pope Martin V, was carried out in 1428.
The most complete biographical study of Wyclif is still the monograph of Workman 1926, but the best analysis of his intellectual development and of the philosophical and thelogical context of his ideas is Robson 1961.

Wyclif produced a very large body of work, both in Latin and English, a great portion of which has been edited by the Wyclif Society between the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries, even though some of his most important books are still unpublished -- for instance, his treatises on time (De tempore) and on divine ideas (De ideis). W. R. Thomson 1983 wrote a full bibliography of Wyclif's Latin writings, among which the following can be mentioned: De logica (On Logic -- ca. 1360); De ente in communi (On Universal Being -- ca. 1365); De ente primo in communi (On Primary Being -- ca. 1365); Purgans errores circa universalia in communi (Amending Errors about Universals -- between 1366 and 1368); De ente praedicamentali (On Categorial Being -- ca. 1369); Tractatus de universalibus (Treatise on Universals -- ca. 1368-69 according to Thomson 1983, but between 1373 and 1374 according to Mueller 1985); De materia et forma (On matter and form -- between late 1370 and early 1372 according to Thomson 1983, but about 1374-75 according to Mueller 1985). Many of these treatises were later arranged as a Summa, called Summa de ente (Summa on Being), in two books, containing seven and six treatises respectively. (On the genesis, nature, structure, and tasks of this work see Robson 1961, pp. 115-40.)



(Just FYI, THAT'S how to cite someone else's work posted on the internet.)

S Walch said:

David Daniell's book, The Bible in English

Look - here it is on Amazon

This is my information source regarding Tyndale and Wycliffe. And let's put it this way - David Daniell shows how accurate Wycliffe and Tyndales translation of the scriptures are, and how, to quote David Daniell himself regarding John Wycliffe:

"John Wycliffe was not the remote and rather pitiable figure, lost in his Oxford world of pointless scholasticism and ineffectual heresy, that his later enemies have prortrayed" - David Daniell, The Bible In English, page 91

Sound familiar, RccWarrior? Are you not proposing the same thing that David Daniell says isn't true?

Would you like me to write out and post David Daniells Biography of John Wycliffe from this book?

You should also try and have a look at David Daniells other book Biography of William Tyndale to get the appropriate facts regarding William Tyndale, rather than the site you were copying and pasting from's bastardisation of the truth regarding Wycliffe and Tyndale.

Click to expand...

Have you read Professor F F Bruce's book "History of the Bible in English", which gets this review:

"Professor Bruce’s book provides compulsive reading. Not only is there a hard-hitting but balanced assessment of modern versions, but also the story of versions down the ages. Dr. Bruce continues to be generous in his praise and firm in his criticism."
Catholic Herald

RccWarrior said:

S Walch, there is nothing more that I can prove to you than already giving you my exhaustive answers in previous threads.

Click to expand...

The problem is, RccWarrior, is that you haven't even answered our one question yet.

I'll state it again:

Where did Wycliffe change the Bible in his translation from the Latin Vulgate?

Book, chapter and verse number with an explination as to why it's wrong would be quite easy to find if he had done so, surely?

Captivated said:

Have you read Professor F F Bruce's book "History of the Bible in English"?

Click to expand...

No I haven't, but I shall definitely have a look at it

It would be good to get a (proper scholary) 2nd view on the subject

I would just like to ask, if RccWarrior says that Tyndale and Wycliffe's work was to change the word of God, does she still read a latin version from the correct (pre corrupted) time period? Because surely that is the only true source...