ENGLISH
VERSIONS
Wyclif
s
opponents
(Arundel,
Knyghton,
and
the
Council
of
Oxford
m
1408)
in
which
Wyclif
s
work
is
mentioned
and
condemned.
Further,
Dr.
Gasquet
denies
that
the
Lollards
made
a
special
point
of
the
circulation
of
the
Scriptures
in
the
vernacular,
or
were
charged
with
so
doing
by
the
ecclesi-astical
authorities
who
prosecuted
them;
and
in
particular
he
draws
a
distinction
between
the
versions
now
extant
and
the
Bible
on
account
of
the
heretical
nature
of
which
(among
other
charges)
one
Richard
Hun
was
condemned
by
the
Bishop
of
London
inl514-
It
has,
however,
been
shown
con-clusively
that
the
depositions
of
the
witnesses
against
the
Lollarck
(which
cannot
be
regarded
as
wholly
irrelevant
to
the
charges
brought
against
them)
constantly
make
mention
of
the
possession
of
vernacular
Bibles;
and
that
the
changes
against
Richard
Hun,
based
upon
the
prologue
to
the
Bible
in
his
possession,
are
taken
verbatim
from
the
prologue
to
the
version
which
we
now
know
as
Purvey's.
It
is
true
that
Dr.
Gasctuet
makes
the
explicit
statement
that
'
we
shall
look
in
vain
in
the
edition
of
Wyclifite
Scriptures
published
by
Forshall
and
Madden
for
any
trace
of
these
errors'
(i.e.
the
errors
found
by
Hun's
prosecutors
in
the
prologue
to
his
Bible)
;
but
awnter
in
the
Church
Quarterly
Remew
(Jan
.
1901
,
p.
292
ff
.)has
printed
in
parallel
columns
the
charges
against
Hun
and
the
corresponding
passages
in
Purvey's
prologue,
which
leave
no
possibihty
of
doubt
that
Hun
waa
condenoned
for
possessing
a
copy
of
the
version
which
is
commonly
known
as
Purvey's,
or
as
the
later
Wyclifite
version.
The
article
in
the
Church
Quarterly
Review
must
be
read
by
everyone
who
wishes
to
investigate
Dr.
Gasciuet's
theory
fully;
the
evidence
there
adduced
is
decisive
as
to
the
unsoundness
of
Dr.
Gasquet's
historical
position.
It
is
impossible
to
attribute
to
the
official
heads
of
the
English
Church
a
translation
the
prologue
to
which
(to
quote
but
two
phrases)
speaks
of
'the
pardouns
of
the
bisschopis
of
Rome,
that
ben
opin
leesingis,'
and
declares
that
'
to
eschewe
pride
and
speke
onour
of
God
and
of
his
lawe,
and
repreue
eynne
bi
weie
of
charite,
is
matir
and
cause
now
whi
prelatis
andsummelordissclaundrenmen,
andclepenhemloUardis,
eretikis,
and
riseris
of
debate
and
of
treson
agens
the
king.
In
the
face
of
this
evidence
it
will
be
impossible
in
future
to
deny
that
the
WycUfite
Bible
is
identical
with
that
which
we
now
possess,
and
that
it
was
at
times
the
cause
of
the
perse-cution
of
its
owners
by
the
authorities
of
the
Church.
That
this
persecution
was
partial
and
temporary
is
likely
enough.
Much
of
it
was
due
to
the
activity
of
individual
bishops,_such
as
Arundel;
but
not
all
the
bishops
shared
Arundel's
views.
Wyclif
had
powerful
supporters,
notablj^
John
of
Gaunt
and
the
University
of
Oxford,
and
under
their
protection
copies
of
the
vernacular
Bible
could
be
produced
and
circulated.
It
is,
moreover,
likely,
not
to
say
certain,
that
aa
time
went
on
the
Wyclifite
origin
of
the
version
would
often
be
forgotten.
Apart
from
the
preface
to
Purvey's
edition^
which
appears
only
rarely
in
the
extant
MSS,
there
is
nothing
in
the
trans-lation
itself
which
would
betray
its
Lollard
origin;
and
it
is
quite
probable
that
many
persons
in
the
15th
and
early
16th
cent,
used
it
without
any
suspicion
of
its
con-nexion
with
Wyclif.
Sir
Thomas
More,
whose
good
faith
there
is
no
reason
to
question,
appears
to
have
done
so;
otherwise
it
can
only
be
supposed
that
the
orthodox
English
Bibles
of
which
he
speaks,
and
which
he
expressly
dis-tinguishes
from
the
Bible
which
caused
the
condemnation
of
Richard
Hun,
have
wholly
disappeared,
which
is
hardly
likely.
If
this
be
admitted,
the
rest
of
More's
evidence
falls
to
the
ground.
The
history
of
the
Wyclifite
Bible,
and
of
its
reception
in
England,
would
in
some
points
bear
re-statement;
but
the
ingenious,
and
at
first
sight
plausible,
theory
of
Abbot
Gasquet
has
failed
to
stand
examination,
and
it
is
to
be
hoped
that
it
may
be
allowed
to
lapse.
10.
With
the
production
of
the
second
Wyclifite
version
the
history
of
the
manuscript
English
Bible
comes
to
an
end.
Purvey's
work
was
on
the
level
of
the
best
scholarship
and
textual
knowledge
of
the
age,
and
it
satisfied
the
requirements
of
those
who
needed
a
vernacular
Bible.
That
it
did
not
reach
modern
stand-ards
in
these
respects
goes
without
saying.
In
the
first
place,
it
was
translated
from
the
Latin
Vulgate,
not
from
the
original
Hebrew
and
Greek,
with
which
there
is
no
reason
to
suppose
that
Wyclif
or
his
assistants
were
familiar.
Secondly,
its
exegesis
is
often
deficient,
and
some
passages
in
it
must
have
been
wholly
unin-telligible
to
its
readers.
This,
however,
may
be
said
even
of
some
parts
of
the
AV,
so
that
it
is
small
reproach
to
Wyclif
and
Purvey;
and
on
the
whole
it
is
a
straight-forward
and
intelligible
version
of
the
Scriptures.
A
few
examples
of
this,
the
first
complete
English
Bible,
ENGLISH
VERSIONS
and
the
first
version
in
which
the
English
approaches
sufficiently
near
to
its
modern
form
to
be
generally
intelligible,
may
be
given
here.
Jn
14^-'.
Be
not
youre
herte
affraied,
ne
drede
it.
Ye
bileuen
in
god,
and
bileueye
in
me.
In
the
hous
of
my
fadir
ben
many
dwellyngis:
if
ony
thing
lasse
I
hadde
seid
to
you,
for
I
go
to
make
redi
to
you
a
place.
And
if
I
go
and
make
redi
to
you
a
place,
eftsone
I
come
and
I
schal
take
you
to
my
silf
,
that
where
I
am,
ye
be.
And
whidir
I
go
ye
witen:
and
ye
witen
the
wey.
'Thomas
seith
to
him,
Lord,
we
witen
not
whidir
thou
goist,
and
hou
moun
we
wite
the
weie.
Ihesus
seith
to
him,
I
am,
weye
truthe
and
liif
:
no
man
cometh
to
the
fadir,
but
bi
me.
If
ye
hadden
knowe
me.
sothli
ye
hadden
knowe
also
my
fadir:
and
aftirwarde
ye
schuln
knowe
him,
and
ye
han
seen
hym.
2
Co
li7-zo_
But
whanne
I
wolde
this
thing,
whether
I
uside
unstidfastnesse?
ether
tho
thingis
that
I
thenke,
I
thenke
aftir
the
fieische,
that
at
me
be
it
is
and
it
is
not.
But
god
is
trewe,
for
oure
word
that
was
at
you,
is
and
is
not,
is
not
thereinne,
but
is
in
it.
Forwhi
ihesus
crist
the
sone
of
god,
which
is
prechid
among
you
bi
uSj
bi
me
and
siluan
and
tymothe,
tner
was
not
in
hym
is
and
is
not,
but
is
was
in
hym.
Forwhi
hou
many
euer
ben
biheestis
of
god,
in
thilke
is
ben
fulfillid.
And
therfor
and
bi
him
we
seien
Amen
to
god,
to
oure
glorie.
Eph
3"
-21.
For
grace
of
this
thing
I
bowe
my
knees
to
the
fadir
of
oure
lord
ihesus
crist,
of
whom
eche
fadirheed
in
heuenes
and
in
ertheis
named,
that
he
geue
to
you
aftir
the
richessia
of
his
glorie,
vertu
to
be
strengthid
bi
his
spirit
in
the
ynner
man;
that
criste
dwelle
bi
feith
in
youre
hertis;
that
ye
rootid
and
groundid
in
charite,
moun
comprehende
with
alle
seyntis
whiche
is
the
breede
and
the
lengthe
and
the
highist
and
the
depnesse;
also
to
wite
the
charite
of
crist
more
excellent
thanne
science,
that
ye
be
fillid
in
all
the
plente
of
god.
And
to
hym
that
is
myghti
t9
do
alle
thinris
more
plenteuousli
thanne
we
axen,
or
undirstande
bi
the
vertu
that
worchith
in
us,
to
hym
be
glorie
in
the
chirche
and
in
crist
ihesus
in
to
alle
the
generaciouns
of
the
worldis.
Amen.
11.
The
English
manuscript
Bible
was
now
complete,
and
no
further
translation
was
issued
in
this
form.
The
Lollard
controversy
died
down
amid
the
strain
of
the
French
wars
and
the
passions
of
the
wars
of
the
Roses;
and
when,
in
the
16th
century,
religious
questions
once
more
came
to
the
front,
the
situation
had
been
funda-mentally
changed
through
the
invention
of
printing.
The
first
book
that
issued
from
the
press
was
the
Latin
Bible
(popularly
known
as
the
Mazarin
Bible),
published
by
Fust
and
Gutenberg
in
1456.
For
the
Latin
Bible
(the
form
in
which
the
Scriptures
had
hitherto
been
mainly
known
in
Western
Europe)
there
was
indeed
so
great
a
demand,
that
no
less
than
124
editions
of
it
are
said
to
have
been
issued
before
the
end
of
the
15th
century;
but
it
was
only
slowly
that
scholars
realized
the
importance
of
utilizing
the
printing
press
for
the
circulation
of
the
Scriptures,
either
in
their
original
tongues,
or
in
the
vernaculars
of
Europe.
The
Hebrew
Psalter
was
printed
in
1477,
the
complete
OT
in
1488.
The
Greek
Bible,
both
OT
and
NT,
was
included
in
the
great
Complutensian
Polyglot
of
Cardinal
Ximenes,
printed
in
1514^17,
but
not
published
till
1522.
The
Greek
NT
(edited
by
Erasmus)
was
first
published
by
Froben
in
1516,
the
OT
by
the
Aldine
press
in
1518.
In
the
way
of
vernacular
versions,
a
French
Bible
was
printed
at
Lyons
about
1478,
and
another
about
1487;
a
Spanish
Pentateuch
was
printed
(by
Jews)
in
1497;
a
German
Bible
was
printed
at
Strassburg
by
Mentelin
in
1466,
and
was
followed
by
eighteen
others
(besides
many
Psalters
and
other
separate
books)
between
that
date
and
1522,
when
the
first
portion
of
Luther's
translation
appeared.
In
England,
Caxton
inserted
the
main
part
of
the
OT
narrative
in
his
translation
of
the
Golden
Legend
(which
in
its
original
form
already
contained
the
Gospel
story),
published
in
1483;
but
no
regular
English
version
of
the
Bible
was
printed
until
1525,
with
which
date
a
new
chapter
in
the
history
of
the
English
Bible
begins.
12.
It
was
not
the
fault
of
the
translator
that
it
did
not
appear
at
least
as
early
as
Luther's.
William
Tindale
(c.
1490-1536)
devoted
himself
early
to
Scrip-ture
studies,
and
by
the
time
he
had
reached
the
age
of
