Comparing and Contrasting the Wycliffe Bible with Contemporary Versions

The Middle English period offers a quaint and riveting look regarding how language functioned, namely spelling an grammar. This paper will examine and compare chapter 20 from the Apocalips of the Wycliffe Bible (WB) with the same chapter in the King James Version (KJV) and the New International Version (NIV).
Examining simply the first line of this chapter in each version tells us a tremendous amount of about early English spelling and grammar, and evokes a more instinctual impression of the passage.
And Y say an aungel comynge doun fro heuene, hauynge the keie of depnesse, and a greet chayne in his hoond. (WB)
And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. (KJV)
And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key to the Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain. (NIV)
The first and most obvious difference is that the pronoun “I” originates as “Y.” Other differences include changes in vowel and consonant combinations. Instead of writing “saw” this word originates as “say.” This difference suggests that perhaps over time, vowel pronunciations in English became more rounded, and the spelling was adjusted to reflect that. A comparable difference exists with the spelling of the word “angel” which presents in the WB as “aungel.” This spelling suggestions a pronunciation that is already rounded, suggesting that over time the pronunciation became truncated (perhaps through overuse) and the spelling was adjusted to reflect the new pronunciation. The word that follows is “comynge” which suggests an antiquated spelling of the progressive tense of the verb “to come” (coming). Here there is consistency with replacing the standard “I” with “y” and adding a silent “e” at the end. If we compare this with the modern texts, the KJV has “come down from” and the NIV has “coming down out of heaven.” The NIV is perhaps the best representation of this original text for modern times because it showcases the importance of the progressive verb. Putting a verb in the progressive tense give a the reader a sense of the ongoing action. In this case, the angel “comynge doun” (WB) and “Coming down” (NIV) subliminally gives the reader a sense of the divine creature flapping its wings and descending from heaven, the realm of the divine to this earthly plane. The KJV rendering just presents it as “come down” which lacks that progressive tense, removing the sense of the process of transit of the angel. This creates a translation which is less evocative in terms of imagery.
If one examines the prepositions used, it is apparent that they too offer a nuance that adds to the overall meaning and imagery. The WB version tells us the angel is originating “fro heuene” which is translated as “from heaven” (KJV) and as “from out of heaven” (NIV). While the KJV offers the reader the most literal and exact translation of the original text, it might not be considered the best translation. By translating the original text as “from out of heaven” in the NJV, the reader gets more of a heightened sense of the separation between heaven and our realm. Using “from out of” more clearly gives the reader a sense that heaven is one place and earth is another and that the angel is a transiting between realms. We also see that the original spelling of the preposition “from” was “fro”, something that suggests that perhaps the “m” sound was added in spelling later on, as colloquially a consonant at the end helps to separate words.
The next phrase of this sentence is perhaps the most provocative, as it states in the WB that “hauynge the keie of depnesse” which is translated to “having the key of the bottomless pit” (KJV) and then “having the key to the Abyss” (NIV). Perhaps one of the most striking aspects of this phrase is that all translations use a progressive form of the verb “to have.” In modern English, “to have” when it comes to concrete possessions is never used in a progressive form. For example, it is incorrect to state, “I’m having a key.” Hence, by presenting the verb in the progressive tense in all of these versions, the reader is given a sense of the ongoing, uninterrupted, continuous nature of the angel possessing the key. This almost creates a sense of reassurance for the reader; it is as if the angel has always possessed the key, and will always continue to possess it.
In terms of spelling, there is a notable absence of the “v” in the “hauynge” with the entire word creating a more rounded pronunciation. The “y” in “key” is presented with an “-ie” at the end, creating a consistency with the juxtapositions between “y” and “I.” Perhaps the most intriguing word choice which is “depnesse” in the WB. One would think that this word translates directly to “deepness” but the KJV, believed by some to offer the most literal and direct translations, translates this word to the phrase “the bottomless pit.” This translation imprints the phrase with meaning, evoking hell or some nether region where people are banished. One could argue that “depnesse” is a more neutral word, suggesting some ether that exists outside the earthly plane. Yet other scholars might disagree, as the word strongly suggests some region that exists beneath this one, one which is lower. This interpretation clearly suggests hell. This is heightened by the NIV translation which uses the word “the abyss.” In some ways, this is the best translation and the best semantic selection. The word captures the core of the original meaning, yet is able to suggest the dankness of hell in a poetic manner.
The final phrase of this sentence “and a greet chayne in his hoond” (WB). This text shows us the consistency of swapping “I” for “Y” in the spelling of words. “Great” is pronounced in early English with a more elongated “ee” sound, so it is fittingly spelled with a more elongated “ee.” Remarkably, from this text, we see that “hand” was originally spelled with an “oo” instead of the more modern-day hard “a” sound. This pronunciation is so similar in sound for the root word of “hound” coming from the Germanic “hund”, that one wonders if this early English was making some sort of connection between human hands and canine paws. The KJV text offers a direct and literal translation of this line, asserting “and a great chain in his hand.” The NIV text offers the reader a slight nuance with the selection of the progressive tense: “and holding in his hand a great chain.” The usage of the verb “Holding” creates consistency with all the other progressive tenses used in this sentence (coming, having). It also gives the reader the sense that the angel is and has always been in control of all relevant matters—the progressive tense offers a strong sense of continuity and unending-ness.
The following line tells us not only more about the agency and strength of this angel, but also sheds light on the lore connected to heaven, hell and the devil. In the WB text, the line proclaims:
 And he cauyte the dragoun, the elde serpent, that is the deuel and Sathanas; and he boonde hym bi a thousynde yeeris.
And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, (KJV)
He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. (NIV)
In the WB, we are first presented with a line that tells us that this angel “cauyte the dragoun.” Here it is noticeable that our modern day “ caught” is spelled with a more guttural pronunciation as “cauyte.” The original spelling of dragon has a more rounded ending with “oun.” Obviously over time, the ending became more shortened in pronunciation and thus truncated in spelling. In terms of the semantic choices here, one would think that the KJV, which is known for more semantic translations, would just translate “cauyte” as “caught” but instead they made the choice to select the phrasal verb “to lay hold.” This is an interesting choice as it gives the reader a sense of constancy. To catch something almost has a temporal quality to it, a quickness. To lay hold of something suggests catching and holding it with an ongoing quality. The NIV text offers a more definitive word choice, using the word “seized.” In meaning, this suggests a quickness and rapidity, but one done with authority and finality. This verb choice gives much power, strength and superiority to the angel who is orchestrating all of this. The entity being seized is articulated in the WB as “the elde serpent” which one would think would translate directly to “the elder serpent.” However the KJV text chooses to translate this just “that old serpent.” It’s interesting to note “the” was changed to “that” which is a demonstrative determiner. The usage of “that” implies to the reader that everyone knows which serpent the text is referring to. It’s also interesting to note that the word “serpent” is unchanged from then until now. The NIV text refers to this entity as the “the ancient serpent.” This is an interesting semantic choice as ancient gives a sense to the reader that this serpent, this symbol of evil, has always existed, and might even be as old as the angel. “Ancient” also offers a connotation of mystery and perhaps even a wisdom of the ages.
It is provocative to note that the original WB text refers to the devil and Satan as “the deuel and Sathanas.” By not using a letter “v” the pronunciation of “devil” is more rounded and almost gives the reader an impression that they are saying “duel” as if “devil” originated from a way of fighting. The word “Sathanas” for “satan” seems to originate from the Latin. There is a widespread consistency among the three texts regarding the translation of how the serpent was bound for a thousand years.
In summary, a comparison of the Wycliffe Bible’s book of the Apocalips with the King James Bible Book of revelations and the New International version’s book of Revelations, offers nuanced distinctions. These distinctions offer provocative changes in the interpretation of the text and many of the subtle changes discussed here abound throughout the chapters. It is notable to see how earlier English was more rounded and how vowels appeared to have more natural elongations. It is also noteworthy that more modern interpretations of such Biblical texts offer the reader more definitive translations, meant to provoke decisive imagery. The comparison of texts in this manner can only help to heighten one’s understanding of the religious texts and the origins of English.