...There are interesting and quite detailed articles on the Wycliffe Bible at http://www.bible-researcher.com/wyclif1.html, http://www.bible-researcher.com/wyclif3.html and http://www.bible-researcher.com/1911-wyclif.html. I note the following, from the last of these, referring to the "Early Version":
Schmuel
This whole question is a little complicated, we have the Tanach and NT, we have the question of Vulgate origins for the Wycliffe NT vs. the TR for the Tyndale NT. And we have multiple versions of Tyndale.
If one compares the phrasing of the NT, how close is Tyndale to Wycliffe ?
http://alleluya.com/ might help. I have a Tyndale edition in text, also.
And in the Tanach, did Wycliffe use the Masoretic Text as his base, or the
Vulgate ?
Or a combination ? And again, how close is the resultant phrasing between
Tyndale and Wycliffe ?
If you feel to give a brief response on this, it might help, especially if
you have done some of the
comparisons.
The translation of the Old Testament as far as Baruch iii. 19 is stiff and awkward, sometimes unintelligible, even nonsensical, from a too close adherence to the Latin text
a symple creature hath translatid the bible out of Latyn into English
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.