Which sources did Wycliff use to produce his Bible?
John Wycliffe used the Latin Vulgate as the primary source for his translation of the Bible into Middle English. The translation process involved several versions, including the Early Version (EV) and the Later Version (LV).
If you are referring to what
most use, that is okay.
I believe I made reference, not to what most use, but
what many translators, have done, and what they use.
Perhaps you do not understand what I am saying. I'll try to go slowly from point A to Z.
Several Bible translations rely on ancient manuscripts to produce their versions of the Bible.
English Standard Version (ESV)
Adheres to an "essentially literal" translation philosophy and attempts to translate difficult Hebrew passages as they stand in the Masoretic text rather than resorting to emendations or finding alternative readings in ancient versions.
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
Known for its literal approach and is often considered one of the most accurate translations in English, reflecting Hebrew and Greek grammar and style the best.
What are the sources of some of these translations?
Hebrew
In the third and second centuries B.C.E., the Hebrew scriptures were translated into Koine Greek, known as the Septuagint version. This was the version commonly used by the writers of the Gospels.
Greek
There are approximately 5,800 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. In addition, there are 10,000 Latin manuscripts, and 9,300 manuscripts in other languages.
The New Testament autographa, the manuscripts written by the original authors, are unavailable, but manuscripts have been discovered that are dated as early as the 2nd century.
Note a very telling fact.
The man responsible for the first complete Bible in English was John Wycliffe (1328–1384)
The first English translation based on the Septuagint was The Holy Bible containing the Old and New Covenant, translated by Charles Thomson in 1808.
Notice how long it took for both Wycliff and Thomas.
More than 1,000 years.
Did the Septuagint and the Greek manuscripts disappear by then?
Not at all. They are available for translators to work from, and while that is not what most do, it is the case with those I referred to.
Wycliff used Latin. Does that mean every translator used the Vulgate, and other Latin texts available? No.
Several Bible translations were produced without relying on Latin sources, focusing instead on the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. One notable example is William Tyndale's Bible, which he completed in 1526, using Erasmus' printed Greek text for the New Testament.
Tyndale's work was significant as he translated the Bible into English directly from the original languages, aiming to make the text accessible to ordinary people.
Note that Tyndale's translation followed nearly 200 years behind Wycliff.
This shows that any translation can be produced from manuscripts prior to Augustine , and any Latin source you referred to.
I'm not referring to
most that jockey off existing translations.
I hope you understand.
That put's Tyndale in the nothing category then, in your book.
It looks like we aren't talking about the same thing.
See sources above, and if you disagree with them, please be sure to provide a reliable source... which you have not yet done.
Yes, I do dismiss what you said, as an unsupported claim.