Etudes balkaniques, 2001, No1

JOHN WYCLIFFE, THE DUALISTS AND THE CYRILLO-METHODIAN VERSION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

 

 

At the beginning of this study, this author would like to specify the usage of two basic terms. “Cyrillo-Methodian version” of the Bible, and particularly the New Testament, signifies the text that was finally translated and compiled by the disciples of St. Cyril and St. Methodius. As we know now, the Slav apostles translated only a selection of New Testament texts dedicated to feast days and used in service (Aprakos){1}, while the complete version was the work of their disciples. One way or another, the approach of Ss. Cyril and Methodius and their school of translation remained a characteristic feature of the translation work done later in Ochrida and Preslav. It is this and copies there of that are indicated when speaking of Cyrillo-Methodian versions.

Similarly, this author has taken into account the now generally accepted opinion of British and American medievalists that, most probably, John Wycliffe himself was not directly responsible for the translation of the New Testament. Today, however, the idea that John Wycliffe was not the author of the translation of the New Testament into English prevails among English and American medievalists. In the introduction to herbook, M. Deanesly mentions a “median” version and texts created in the circles of Wycliffe’s followers{2}. The Cambridge History of English and American Literature, in turn, mentions a translation by Nicholas Hereford, as well as a revision of the translation made by John Purvey{3}. The situation is most probably summed up best by V. Hotchkiss: “Although often given credit of the translation of the Vulgate into English, it is now generally thought that Wycliffe was not directly responsible. Nonetheless, he certainly inspired his followers to undertake this project.”{4} And, since it seems one should agree with the Cambridge History of English and American Literature that the history of those early translations should be deciphered and written additionally{5}, this author has chosen a rather more different approach. Besides adopting the more general concept of “Wycliffite translations” we shall concern ourselves with a later version, dating from the 1400-1450 period{6}. Presumably, as a result of the repeated copying and passage of time, in this case there will already be a distance from the original. And, should one find characteristic features inherent to Wycliffe’s philosophy in this text, they would be even more valid for the manuscripts considered to have come out under the direct supervision of or been edited by Wycliffe himself. We could add one important observation in this respect: repeated comparison between the later 1400-1450 version and the copy ascribed to Wycliffe’s own hand{7} revealed a coincidence of the funadmental interpretations and peculiar terms used by Wycliffe himself. A proximity and coincidence that, by the way, resounds in the theology Wycliffe expressed in other works. Generally speaking, this study is in the sphere of ideas and is the first of its kind. And there is still abundant material for studying Wycliffe’s ideas and thought, regardless of the currently ongoing revelations about his literary heritage. In our case, the main approaches are frequency analysis and hermeneutics. Since the version we have used is on CD, it allows a precise quantitative description of Wycliffe’s specific vocabulary. For a number of objective reasons, this author could not use previous editions of Wycliffe or other direct sources connected with the Wycliffite translation circle{8}.

Open any modern official edition of the Bible in English (for example The Holy Bible. New Revised Standard Version. Oxford, 1989) and read the Lord’s Prayer and you shall see that there God is asked to give [us] “this day our daily bread”. In Wycliffe’s English versions of the Scriptures however, begun about the year 1380, one finds a rather different text, i.e. “oure breed ouer othir substaunce” Math. 6:9-13 [give us this day our daily bread over another substance]{9}. Why the difference? Why such an unusual sounding in which, besides the translation, there is obviously a small comment of the translator himself? The answer on principle was provided by Yordan Ivanov, a noted Bulgarian philologist and historian. In his well-known book, Bogomil Books and Legends, he wrote that the Bosnian Bogomils read the Lord’s Prayer in just such a way, pronouncing “give us our daily bread of another substance”{10}. A similar version can be found in the lyonnaise rendition of the Albigensian Scriptures: “E dona a noi lo nostre pa qui es sabre tota cause” [“the bread that is above all else”]. Similarly there is one Old Italian version: “Il pane nostre sopra tucte le substantie da a nnoi oggi” [“our bread over any substance”].

Since the Bogomils gave the Cathars the quoted version of the Cyrillo-Methodian translation of the New Testament (subsequently translated into the Latin by the Cathars), we shall turn to the idea that John Wycliffe did not translate the Scriptures from the Vulgate, as the printed editions of his version later stated, but from a Cyrillo-Methodian version. By the way, even today the Bulgarian version of the Lord’s Prayer reads “our daily [substantial] bread” which is much closer to the Greek original “τον̣ αρτον ημον τον επιουσιον”, where the word “επιουσιον” means literally “suprasubstantial”. In other words, the Cyrillo-Methodian version is closer to the Greek original than the Vulgate “our daily [quotitianum] bread”. In fact, the term “supersubstantialem” is used in the various Vulgate versions, in Matthew and in Luke (11:2-4), but it is practically excluded from the liturgical and sacramental practice of the Catholic Church. What is more, to pronounce “suprasubstantial” [supersubstantialem] instead of “our daily bread” [panem nostrum quotidianum] in the Lord’s Prayer was considered a sure sign of heresy in the Middle Ages. According to Collectio Occitanica, Inquisition records from Carcassonne, in Lombardy Bernard Oliva, the heretical bishop from Toulouse, pronounced 'panem nostrum supersubstantialem' (dicendo in oratione Pater noster: panem nostrum supersubstantialem) when he said the Lord’s Prayer{11}.

 Even in the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century, many authors paid attention to the fact that the Bogomils lay the stress on “our bread of another substance”.

In this case we shall list just a few of them because, both in Bulgaria and abroad, one encounters a conservative underestimation of this detail and an inability to decipher its theological significance{12}. H. Puech and A. Vaillant underscored the concept described by Euthymius Zygavin that “Bogomils created their haven, the true eucharistic bread that is "αρτος επιουσιος”, by which they acquire the blood and flesh of Christ everyday"{13}. Zygavin mentions the special word "επιουσιος" by which they characterised the bread: "τον̣ αρτον γαρ, φηςι, τον επιουσιον”{14}. N. Osokyn also noted the “Greek practice” of the Bogomils and the Cathars: they sang the Lord’s Prayer after the Greek fashion, substituting “our daily bread” (quotidianum) for the words “our supernatural bread” and adding at the end “яко твое ест царство” etc. adopted by the Eastern Church with good reason”{15}. Jean Guiraud, a scholar who studied the Cathars and was their opponent centuries after they existed, claimed that “they dared to adjust even the word of Christ”, taking the liberty to read the said part of the Lord’s Prayer in their own way{16}.

At this point I would like to undertake a rather more comprehensive explanation of the Cathar concept of the Lord’s Prayer that C. Schmidt made in 1849: “... they interpreted ‘daily bread’ in the sense of food for the soul and, instead of the simple formula from the Scripture, ‘Give us today our superstubstantial bread’, ending with the words ‘for Thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory in all eternity’. Since these words cannot be found in the Vulgate, the opponents of the Cathars who were not familiar with the original text, accused them of misrepresenting the Bible in this particular place. This accusation the latter did not deserve because on this point their version, made on the basis of a Greek source, was more correct than the version of the Western Church.”{17}

It was exactly Schmidt who gave the explanation, repeated a century later by Yordan Ivanov. He pointed out that, in the Greek original, the expression from Matthew “τον̣ αρτον ημον τον επιουσιον”, repeated also in Luke, was translated as panem supersubstantialem (Matthew) and panem quotidianum (Luke) in the Vulgate. He added that the latter expression “was more accepted in the [Catholic – author’s note] Church than the former one”{18}.

One could actually say that Wycliffe’s “oure breed ouer othir substaunce” is rather more than just a translation. It is a strongly accentuated comment, for it substitutes the word “supersubstantialem” for three whole words “ouer othir substaunce”, intended to endorse the supramaterial notion of the Word as spiritual bread. On other occasions, and in open polemics with the Catholic Church in England at that, John Wycliffe repeatedly supported the view that the Word was spiritual bread and true communion: “Teneamos ergo quod, virtute verborum Christi, panis fit” [“We consider bread the virtue of Christ’s word”]{19}. There is an undoubted coincidence with the dualistic thesis, to mention even Euthymius Zygavin (early 12th century), according to whom the Bogomils called “the Lord’s Prayer bread of the communion” (αρτον μεν γαρ κοινωνιας ονομαζουσι την προσευχην του, Пατερ ημον)20. We have the same coincidence with the Albigensian thesis that “God’s word is this bread”, recorded by the Inquisition at the beginning of the 14th century.

This definitely dualistic interpretation prompts one to look for other dualistic themes in Wycliffe. And there a so many of them and so well expressed that one wonders how they have not been noticed until now. To the best of this author’s knowledge, none of the contemporary scholars studying Wycliffe has made even a single such observation

or assumption. In the first third of the 20th century, Leo Seifert alone expressed the opinion that Wycliffe was very close to Dualism{21}. To fill in this unsubstantiated void, we shall hereafter quote some of Wycliffe’s fundamental dualistic theses, compared to those of the Bogomils and Cathars and grouped in the following manner:

• dualistic theogony;

• dualistic criticism of the Church and the rites;

• social views.

DUALISTIC THEOGONY

It was a fundamental Bogomil tenet that the Devil was creator and master of this world. This explains Wycliffe’s well-known Seventh of all the 24 Conclusions refuted by the Synod in London in 1382, one that continues to amaze British medievalists.

The other part of the dualistic myth about the pride and fall of Lucifer and his angels also features repeatedly in the works of Wycliffe. True, he called upon Isaiah, obviously to defend himself from his numerous opponents from the Catholic Church. Both Bogomils and Cathars themselves also frequently quoted this theme according to

Isaiah.

It is essential to know that the English reformer leant on this myth to attack the Pope, comparing the him and his court to the fall of Lucifer and his angels. In the commentary column in English on the same page, the publisher has summed up the result of the comparison thus: 'Angels our first parents and the apostles have sinned, mush more may the pope with his whole college sin.'{22}

Incarnation of the souls of angels in the human body

This important part of what is called “secondary” or Satanic creation in the West, to use the Bogomil terminology, also found place in Wycliffe’s views. He developed the thesis of the dual human nature, i.e. flesh and soul, explaining that souls were probably angels implanted in human bodies. Wycliffe did not reveal his source, mainly out of caution, he just said he had taken the idea ex fide scripture. By this expression he underscored both the orthodoxy of the source and the reliability of the knowledge.

DUALISTIC CRITICISM OF CHURCH AND RITES

Wycliffe’s Catholic adversaries persecuted him even after his death. In addition to the fact that his bones were exhumed and burnt, there were claims that he was guilty of 700 transgressions against the Roman Church and its practices. Wycliffe’s probably most attacked thesis was his rejection of transubstantiation, the conversion of the bread and the wine in the altar into the blood and body of Christ. As we well know, this was a fundamental tenet with both the Bogomils and the Cathars.

At that, the heretical Wycliffe made an important addition, one that should be acceptable to any reasonable theologian: that the bread and the wine of the host acquired the meaning of moral participation unto Christ, that they were efficax ejus signum. It is regrettable that the synod refused to accept this nuance, offered by Wycliffe on the basis of St. Augustine’s famous interpretation of the three aspects of the communion.

This fundamental dualistic attitude to an internal communion with God, inherited by the Protestants today, was also a familiar position of Wycliffe’s.

Wycliffe developed this view in severe criticism of the decree of Pope Innocent III, Omnis utrusque sexus, according to which people who had not been granted absolution by Catholic priests could not be saved. The uncouthness and pointlessness of such an assertion were refuted categorically: “No one can believe that a man may not be saved without a confession of this kind, for other wise all the dead from Christ’s ascension to the time of Innocent III are lost – a horrible thing to believe.”{23}

Another dualistic rule, i.e. that priests who sinned could not serve believers, was also adopted. To that Wycliffe added his famous assertion that earthly rulers who sinned lost their right of property and power. In other words, to use the modern political terminology, he created a situation of impeachment by the attitude to God.

We know that John Wycliffe reached the point of complete rejection of the Catholic Church and the Pope and recommended that the civil power deprive the church of its endowments. He defended a similar opinion directly in a letter to Richard II, but with much sharper expressions in the spirit of the Cathar allegation that the Pope was “involved with the Devil”, i.e. Antichrist, can be found in his other texts.

Like the Cathars, Wycliffe rejected excommunication, one of the most severe sanctions of the Catholic Church, as invalid and immoral, thus rendering its authority

ineffective to a certain degree. Wycliffe must have enjoyed quite considerable authority and social support for, although the London Synod of 1382 condemned his views, the reformer was not excommunicated.

SOCIAL VIEWS

Wycliffe’s social views are a matter of such richness and complexity that they will probably be the source of plenty of studies to come. In this paper we shall mention only two essential cases of ideas and practice shared by the dualists and the British reformer.

Considering how underdeveloped medieval legislation was, the oath was an important legal tool to subject ordinary people to the worldly and ecclesiastic authorities. By rejecting the oath, the dualists actually refused involvement with the structures of authority in society that they considered unjust and subject to the Devil. Thus ordinary man was provided with social involvement as a democratic choice in a hint of the first modern right of civil society. One cannot but notice that John Wycliffe considered the oath as “superfluous among the perfect”, mentioning one of the fundamental terms of Bogomils and Cathars, i.e. perfecti. In other words, he used the language of the dualists.

Even the Bulgarian Bogomils called the liturgy something superfluous, a view that was later transferred among the Cathars. Wycliffe was also one of its radical supporters, being in harmony with the familiar Bogomil protestation that the apostles did not conduct liturgies.

Just like the Cathars, John Wycliffe rejected the sale of indulgences.

Quite naturally, there are some specific differences in this parallel. Although he was an adherent of dualism, John Wycliffe retained a certain desire to arrive at a compromise with the official church on some problems. For example, he did not reject the presence of images in church. Partially adopting the dualist criticism of icons and the cross, he only warned against extreme veneration of the latter and the former.

It is natural that this part should conclude with a comparison of the persecution, suffered by dualists for disseminating the New Testament in the vernacular, and the repression of Wycliffe’s work on the translation of the New Testament.

Back again to the subject of New Testament translation, this proves rooted in John Wycliffe’s dualistic philosophy. The measure of that involvement, however, is a much stronger and organic one and it found a peculiar linguistic expression in the translation of the New Testament. It turned out that the formula “ouer bread ouer othir substaunce” is accompanied by a certain vocabulary that carries traces of traditional Bogomil and Cathar interpretations of the Gospel. Dualism is the philosophy that gave birth to the initiative of translating the New Testament into English, and the translation carries in itself the imprint of that philosophy. In other words, a mutual motivation that proceeds from the spirit of the “Bulgarian heresy”. At that, we shall see that the Wycliffite approach to translation largely followed the Cyrillo-Methodian example. More specifically, we are speaking of daring coinage, of enriching and energising phrases, the latter distinction originating in the Greek phrase. In other words the literature of Bogomils, Cathars and Lollards rested on the cultural tradition of the Orthodox Church. What we have here is not heresy but a popularisation of the Holy Writ. It is this sense that Pope John Paul II discerned in the work of the Slav apostles, seeing in it “enculturation – the incarnation of the New Testament in local cultures – as well as their introduction to the life of the Church”{24}. The dualists did the same thing, too.

The opinion supported by Margaret Deanesly that the Wycliffite translation is “the most revised and idiomatic form of the Earlier Version”{25} indicates that Wycliffe’s strong propensity for the vernacular is well known among the English authors. This author, however has assumed the even more radical view of the American researcher, Fred Robinson, who introduced the expression “the Lollards’ Englishing of the Vulgate Bible”{26}. He pays special attention to the General Prologue included in nine Wycliffite copies, where ambition to render the Scriptures in the vernacular is declared, a proposition reinforced by the argument that such a translation would overcome some ambiguities in the Vulgate. The linguistic procedures of the English translation are commended as being richer in a discussion on the importance of using Middle English as opposed to Latin word order in the translation{27}. 

Subsequently we shall quote some cases of intentional substitution of Latin words and roots for English ones, as well as impressive examples of creating new words, both of which indicate that John Wycliffe and his followers conceived and achieved a translation alternative to the Vulgate. Obviously, the wanted to render the Holy Writ into the spoken, vernacular language. Among other things, their achievement also differs from the biblical excerpts translated into Old English in terms of flexibility and lexical abundance.

To put it simply, the translation reveals a visible effort to replace the Latin for the Anglo-Saxon, i. e. the older and more widespread substratum of the English language. One example is a crucial notion and image, that of the resurrection of Christ. The word “възкресение”, used in Bulgarian, was absolutely new and bore considerable poetic charge. It was not a direct translation of the Greek αναστασις " that means “getting up, rising”. The Bulgarian word means rising from the Cross, ascension above the Cross. The great Bulgarian writer and medievalist Stefan Gechev assumed that the image originated among the earliest Slav converts to Christianity around Salonika and that the apostles of the Slavs, Cyril and Methodius, adopted quite a lot of that first Slavonic Christian popular vocabulary.

The Wycliffite translators repeatedly used the Latin term resureccioun, resurexioun of Christ (Acts 1:22). Thus they share a vocabulary with King James’ version. (Please, see the Appendix).Nevertheless, they preferred a purely English term, agenrysing, and used it in the key phrase where Christ says: “I am agenrysing & lyf” (John 11:25). True, according to the OED this word was used in 1380 in a variant of the Catholic Credo, i.e. a..enrisyng of fleish{28}. Its introduction as New Testament lexis, however, was a feature of the Wycliffite version. The OED also mentions that Wycliffe used the same word in 1382{29}. At that, the word agenrysing appears on fifteen other occasions: in Luke 20:27; John 11:24-25; Romans 1:4; I Corinthians 15:12-13; I Corinthians 15:42; Acts 4:33; Acts 17:18; Acts 23:6; Acts 24:15; Acts 24:21; Acts 26:23; I Peter 1:3 and Revelation 20:6. It would be interesting to note that one sometimes finds a certain similarity to this phrase in King James’ version. In Romans 4:25 we have “was raised again”, almost a complete coincidence with “roos agen” in the Wycliffite translation. The only difference is that passive voice was used in King James’ version while the Wycliffite translation uses the active voice.

Wycliffe and his disciples did not achieve a richer image than that contained in the Bulgarian word “възкресение” (rise, ascend above the cross). With a similar desire to use their native language as much as possible, however, they achieved an expressive rendition of the Greek and Latin term into English. Instead of using Latinised lexis they created their own Christian vocabulary in English with the dedication and frequency the Slav apostles applied in creating its Slavonic equivalent.

Now here is yet another example in this respect. The Wycliffite translation uses the word cristne, i.e. christianise, instead of or parallel to baptise. Cristne is an old root in the English language. According to the OED, it was first mentioned back in 890 (cristenesta){30} and Wycliffe obviously used it to increase the presence of English vocabulary in the translation of the New Testament. His use of cristne, by the way, is mentioned on the respective page of the OED that states Wycliffe used the word in 1380{31}. That, too, was the supposed date when the translation of the New Testament was begun, it being said in both the case of agenrysing and cristne that the words were used by Wycliffe himself.

Another example: 'Thanne Ihesus cam fro Galile into Iordan to Iohn, for to be cristened of hym. Sotheli Iohn forbeed hym & seide, I owe forto be cristenid of thee, & thou comest to me?” (Mt 3:13-14).

The desire to anglicise did not stop even at the titles of the chapters. Instead of Acts of the Apostles, as in King James’s version where it originates directly from Actus Apostolorum in the Vulgate, the Wycliffite version offered Dedis of apostolis, using the Old English word of ded, dжd. This ambition even went to the point of detail. In the Lord’s Prayer (Mt 6:13), the Wycliffite translation follows “amen” with its translation – that is so be it.

Now we come to the dualistic tones. One can discern a measure of dualistic interpretation in the case of the verb waische (to wash). On the one hand, the Wycliffite translation uses this verb in its traditional meaning of “to wash”, a full coincidence with its meaning in the King James’ version. This is what one finds in Matthew 15:2:

When speaking of baptism, however, the stress lies on the fact that John the Baptist baptises with water, i.e. that what he did was rather a ritual cleansing for repentance and ablution than baptism, while true baptism according to Bogomils, Cathars and Lollards was in the Holy Spirit{32}. In other words, we have an absolutely free introduction of the verb waische. No similar term exists in either in the Greek or the Latin text, nor can it be found in King James’ version. Hence what we have here is dualistic re-editing.

Matthew 3:11-12

One finds yet another usage of waischun, as a past participle, in order to underscore that John’s baptism is “with water” (Mt 3:5)

Another dualistic accent in the Wycliffite translation, and in this case we are not talking of John Wycliffe’s dualistic texts in general, but of a dualistic thesis in the translation of the New Testament, added as a commentary. This is an important thing to know because it leads to the thought that Wycliffe’s translators could have used not the Vulgate as an original, but a version the dualists spread in Latin. The Prologue to St. John's Gospel mentions that he is more beloved of God than the other disciples (seid loued of God bifore othere disciplis). This is a familiar dualistic idea, directly embodied in the Secret Book of the Bogomils where John with head resting on the brest of Christ, receives Christ's explanation of the origin and structure of the universe. With this detail we already have two indirect quotations of the Secret Book. As we have mentioned already, John Wycliffe called upon ex fide scripture in his work De compositione hominis and mentioned that human souls are borrowed from angels.

It is quite natural that we should answer yet another question. Considering such obvious typological similarity between the dualists and Wycliffe, could one find proof of a genetic link between the English reformer, his supporters and haeresia Bulgarorum, i.e. the Bogomil movement. The answer is in the positive and, although we have mainly indirect evidence so far, this is still something unique. In other words, the evidence points at a single interpretation and it is difficult to find another one that would refute it. For example, the fact of Wycliffe’s dualistic, or geographically eastern, orientation is also supported by his special preference for Greek lexis. To the best of this author’s knowledge, English scholars have not yet commented on it.

John Wycliffe had a penchant for Greek. We find three characters in conversation in his work Trialogus: Alithia, Phronesis and Pseudis. However, Alithia, Phronesis and Pseudis are Latinized Greek words that mean Truth, Reason and Fraud. A witness at the 1382 trial against Wycliffe reported that he considered antiquity as an authority and quoted names like Orpheus, Plato, Aristotle, Pythagoras, etc.{33} When he proposed the idea of an English Church independent of the Vatican, the reformer called upon the “Greek tradition” (more Graecorum), as it was usually called in the Middle Ages{34}, i. e. the tradition of the Orthodox Church. When he argued against an opinion of Socrates Wycliffe relied on Aristotle{35}.

What we have in this case is a scholar who, by his knowledge of Greek philosophy and the Greek original of the New Testament, overstepped the Latin linguistic restriction, imposed by the Catholic dictate over culture at that time. That, according to the British scholar F. Hearnshow, was the earliest humanistic sway in medieval England{36}.

 None of Wycliffe’s biographers ever wrote he knew Greek, nor do his works (at least those this author has seen) feature quotations in Greek. Then the use of Greek words could mean that he had an erudite friend who directed him towards the Greek cultural heritage. According to historians, quite a few of the “perfect” (that was what Bogomil and Cathar leaders were called) knew Greek besides their native language and Latin. We also know about Bogomil missions from Consantinople to Western Europe, including through what Stephen Runciman wrote. Therefore, such a man could possibly have been next to Wycliffe.

It is high time, though, to reveal the power and dynamics of the Wycliffite phrase, qualities that in a sense had a measure of Greek origin. Let us take the well-known place in Acts 26:23 “that Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first to rise from the dead”, or “if Crist is to suffre, if he is the firste of agenrysing of deed men, that schal schewe light to the peple & to hethen men” in the Wycliffite version. While King James’ version uses the verb “should suffer”, the Wycliffite translation adopts an if-clause that is almost identical with the Greek original “ei protasis"” form, ei or the Latin “si”. The act of the resurrection expressed by the gerund (agenrysing of deed men), is more emotional and more lasting than in the case of the simpler verbal form of King James’ version that promises but lacks the same emphasis – “he should be the first that should rise from the dead.” Generally speaking, when one compares the Wycliffite and the King James’ translation, one cannot but see that the former is a more masterly rendition of the Greek text. Last, but not least, the Wycliffite expression is more poetic and bears more sharing of the glory of the resurrection, while King James’ version is a rational presentation of the final outcome.

These not only lexical but also stylistic and syntactic peculiarities were also noticed by some Western scholars. This was how, for example, Fred Robinson characterised them: “The General prologue also defends a more flexile translation of Latin ablative constructions, of polysemous words, of present participles, etc.”{37} This approach is quite close to the linguistic results that, according to A. Schlцtser and P. Lavrov, were achieved in the translations of the Bible in Slavonic languages{38}.

Translators from the Greek were forced to use “introductory sentences, ten different participles related to one another, rich resounding words”, and so on{39}. In other words, this outlines a marked typology of translation characteristic of the Cyrillo-Methodian tradition. To put it more precisely, Greek has left the imprint of its system on the recipient languages. As we have already mentioned, C. Schmidt and Yordan Ivanov thought this typology was conveyed by the Cyrillo-Methodian copies that the Bogomils relayed to Western Europe. Of all British authors Bertrand Hamilton alone is interested in looking for such Greek reflections with a dualist flavour, and that in the sphere of lexis: 'A faint memory of such a process may be preserved in the gloss on the Lord's Prayer in the Cathar Rituel of Florence: '' Quoniam tuum est regnum" - hoc verbum dicitur esse in libris greccis vel hebraicis'(For thine is the kingdom' - this phrase is said to be in the Greek and Hebrew texts).' he wrote.{40}.

Considering all this, one gets even more convinced that John Wycliffe and his adherents did not use the Vulgate as the source of their translation, but a Cyrillo-Methodian copy. The latter was most probably translated into Latin but it had preserved to some extent the freedom of translation achieved by St. Cyril, St. Methodius and their disciples. In the earliest Slavonic variant of the Lord’s Prayer, dating from the 10th century and discovered by Trendafil Krustanov in the Vatican palimpsest (Codex Vaticano graeco No. 2502), Ana-Maria Totomanova desciphered the word “хлћбъ нашь епноуснн”, doubtless a direct borrowing from the Greek{41}. We know that this is not an isolated case: other Old Bulgarian translations of the New Testament have preserved "епноуснн" in the Lord’s Prayer.

 However, one finds a preference for the term επιουσιον in John Wycliffe. At the synodal trial in 1382, Thomas Wyntirton tried to achieve a measure of condescension for Wycliffe because they were both members of the Augustinian order. Thus Wyntirton’s treatise was called Absolutio and he polemicised with his opponent much more subtly and intelligently than the other accusers. Without entering into detail we shall only say that, according to Wyntirton, Wycliffe said “Panem dixit quidem, sed ephiusion ‘hoc est supersubstantialem’”{42}. This evidence that Wycliffe used a Latinised form of the term επιουσιον, i.e. ephiusion, outlines a visible chain of conceptual and lexical transfer. The chain begins with the Bulgarian transcription епноyсни in the Vatican Gospel (10th century) and ends with the Latin transcription of this term, ephiusion, in Wycliffe. This chain of transfer, the initial and final stage of which are clearly outlined at this point, lies in the context of Wycliffe’s undoubted spiritual association with the dualists, as well as in the context of his marked interest in Greek culture.

Detailed restoration of the vocabulary and the environment of the Wycliffite translation of the New Testament, the clarification of dualistic elements in Wycliffe’s theology allow one to draw the following general picture from the separate facts:

1. John Wycliffe was an adherent of Bogomil-Cathar dualism. He and his disciples introduced specific dualistic tones into the New Testament translation;

2. The Wycliffite translation reveals similarities with the Cyrillo-Methodian approach to the translation of the Scriptures, including coining new words and extracting lexical material from the mother tongue, dynamic phrase and a variety of participles;

3. Wycliffe had a visible penchant for Greek lexis and for Greek culture. Although it is not specified still, this Greek source is a reality that is liable to further investigation. At this point, the most acceptable assumption is that this could have been Bogomil “Perfecti” who came from Constantinople or Bulgaria;

4. These data allow one to endorse the hypothesis that the Wycliffite translation could have been made not from the Vulgate, but from a Cyrillo-Methodian version that was Latinised and transported by dualist Bogomils and Cathars. The least that can be said is that the Wycliffite translation was made with a knowledge of and a respect for the Greek version of the New Testament.

 Thus, haeresia Bulgarorum, with its already proven Pan-European diffusion and footing in the cultural life of many countries like Italy, France – particularly Provence, Germany, Spain and Flanders, became the exemplum Bulgariacum of popular translations of the New Testament, bearing the freedom of direct communication with the Scriptures.

One should also look at this phenomenon from the aspect of social and cultural change. One could definitely claim that Wycliffe, his circle and the popular culture of the Lollards achieved a sort of renaissance of the English language. That liberated culture even created its own social type, the educated layman or, to borrow the term from Anne Hudson, laicus literatus{43}. What she had in mind was the investigation against the Lollard Walter Brut in the period between 1390 and 1393{44}, opened by Bishop Trefnant of Hereford. The defendant Brut displayed broad culture, a knowledge of Latin and the ability to argue with the bishop’s rather impressive team, including 15 officials, three masters and two bachelors of theology, and two doctors of civil and canon law. Although she still retained some doubts as to how widespread Brut was as a social phenomenon, Anne Hudson concluded that “Walter Brut may have been an extreme example of the Lollars laicus literatus, but he was far from the only one”{45}. To her comments she added the fact that “the Lollard heresy was learned, indeed academic”, and that “the immediate source of the heresy was the thought of John Wycliffe”{46}.

That cultural upsurge was in harmony with the brilliance of the Cathar civilisation in Provence, with the cultural and literary activity of the Bulgarian and Bosnian Bogomils. A phenomenon where evangelisation, that grew into self-evangelisation, developed into a national and popular self-education, into a proto-Renaissance.

APPENDIX

Why undertake this comparison between the Wycliffite translation and King James’ version?

First, the Authorized version of the Bible is really the most popular variant in England

and the USA that performs the prime prescription “appointed to be read in the Churches”. The translation of the Bible, done by 54 learned men under the aegis of King James in the period between 1604 and 1611, was designed as an alternative of the Vulgate in order to achieve “a more exact Translation of the holy Scriptures into the English Tongue” by a fresh interpretation of Hebrew and Greek originals{47}. That initiative also aimed “to offer a palpable defence against the criticisms of “Popish Persones at home and abroad”{48}. The Cambridge History of English and American Literature in 18 Volumes specifies: “It is agreed on all hands that the English of the Authorised Version is, in essentials, that of Tindale”{49}, who in 1525 made a translation of the New Testament from a Greek original. Other authors add that Textus Receptus by Erasmus was also considered when the version of King James was produced.
For our purpose, we ask what the degree of Anglicisation is when one compares the Wycliffite and the King James’ version? Andrew Sanders sees “inaccuracies and Latinate rhythms of the Vulgate”in the Wycliffite result{50}, meaning that King James’ version is supposed to be more Anglicised. But when one undertakes a textological analysis one comes upon an opposite trend. The vocabulary of King James’ version is more influenced by Latin than the Wycliffite one. Besides, the Wycliffite rhythm is more distant from the Latin that the former.

Another fact supporting this observation. King James’ version adopted the translation principle that “the old ‘ecclesiastical words’ (as 'church' for 'congregation' and 'charity' for 'love') were to be preserved”{51}. That meant substitution of the English word love (ME<lufu, akin to OHG luba, Goth lubo) for the Latin root charity (ME & Ofr charite <L caritas). Commenting on Tindale’s work Bishop Stephen Gardiner of Winchester gave similar advice, i.e. “that certain 'ecclesiastical words' should be left as they appeared in the Vulgate, chief among them being ecclesia, episcopus, caritas and gratia”{52}. Thus, recurrent returns to Latin vocabulary is a practice in King James’ version.

This author has no intention of implying some kind of rivalry when speaking of the Wycliffite and King James’ version because both of them proclaim the defense and the development of the English language. This comparison is intended to reveal some visible specific features suggesting that Wycliffe and his followers may have used a Latin translation of the Cyrillo-Methodian version of the New Testament. A source more specific than the ''corrupt text of the Latin Vulgate”{53}.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am enormously indebted to the great Bulgarian writer and medievalist, Stefan Gechev, who suggested the significance of this theme.

I am very grateful to the distinguished Corresponding Member, Prof. Vassil Gyuzelev, University of Sofia, for his moral support from the inception of this project. I am equally indebted to Prof. Rumyana Zlatanova of Heidelberg University. The same cordial  words I address to Prof. David Daniell, Oxford. 

I also express my heartfelt gratitude to the eminent colleagues abroad who donated valuable sources to Bulgarian historical science:

Professor Anne Hudson, Oxford, who donated Fasciculi Zizaniorum Magistri Johannis Wyclif cum tritico, edited by Walter Shirley. London. 1858.

Associate Professor Valerie Hotchkiss, Director of Bridwell Library, Dallas, USA who donated Wyclyfitte Manuscript. The New Testament. England, 1400-1450. CD version, Octavo edition 1999.

Mr. Dennis Norlin, Executive Director of the American Theological Library Association(1999), who donated the microfilm of The Holy Bible containing the Old and New Testaments with apocryphal books in the Earliest English versions made from Latin Vulgate by John Wycliffe and his followers; edited by Josiah Forshall and Frederic Madden. Oxford.1850.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Кирило-методиевска енциклопедия. Т.I. 1985

XXIV Conclusiones Wycclyf damnatae Londoniis in synodo -in: Fasciculi Zizaniorum

Deanesly, M. The Lollard Bible and other Medieval versions by Margaret Deanesly. Cambridge at the University press 1920/1966

Giuraud, J. Cartulaire de Notre Dame de Prouilles, prйcйdй d'une йtude sur Albigйisme languйdocien au XIIe et XIIIe siиcles. t.1-2. Paris. 1907

Godwin, W. A Greek Grammar. London.1910

Cambridge History of English and American literature in 18 volumes (1907-21). V.II. The End of the Middle Ages

Dцllinger, Ign. v. Dokumente vornehmlich zur Geschichte der Valdesier und Katharer herausgegeben. Mьnchen, 1890. Vol. II.

Fasciculi Zizaniorum magistri Johannis Wyclif cum tritico. Edited by W.Shirley. London,1858

Gui, B. Manuel de l'inquisiteur. Paris, t. I, 1926.

Hamilton, B. Wisdom from the East: the reception by the Cathars of Eastern dualist texts. – In: Heresy and Literacy. Cambridge, 1994/1996.

Hearnshow, F. Some Great Political Idealists of the Christian Era. London, Bombay, Sidney.

The Holy Bible, containing the Old and New Testament with the apocryphal books, in the earliest English versions made from the Latin Vulgate by John Wycliffe and his followers. Edited by J. Forshall and Fr. Madden. V.IV. Oxford. M.DCCC.L.

Hotchkiss, V. Outlawed English. – In: Formatting the Word of God. Edited by Hotchkiss and Ch. Ryrie. Dallas,1998.

Hudson, A. 'Laicus literatus': the paradox of Lollardy. – In: Heresy and literacy, 1000-1530. Cambridge, 1994/1996.

Ingressus fratris Kynyngham Carmelitae contra Wicclyf. – In: Fasciculi Zizaniorum.

Interrogatio Johannis, or the Secret book of Bogomils. – In: Oxford English Dictionary, 1989, Vols. I., II, VI.

Puech, H. A. Vaillant. Le traitй contre les Bogomiles de Cosmas le Prкtre. Paris, 1945.

Robinson F. Commentary – in: CD:Wycliffite Manuscript. The New Testament. England, 1400-1450. Ed. by Bridwell library/Dallas/ and Octavo corporation.1999

Seifert, L. Die Welte revolutionдre. Von Bogomil ьber Huss zu Lenin. Wien. 1931

Tanner, N. Herеsy trials in the diocese of Norwich 1428-31. London. 1977

Schmidt,C. Histoire et doctrine de la secte des cathares ou albigeois. t.II. Paris-Genиve. 1849

Wiclif, J. De compositione hominis. London. 1884

Wycliffe, J. Summa in theologia. Tractatus tertieus. De civili domino. London. MDCCCXXV

Wycliffite Manuscript. The New Testament. England, 1400-1450. Ed. by Bridwell library and Octavo corporation. 1999.CD version.

FOOTNOTES

1. Кирило-методиевска енциклопедия. I, 1985, 631-632.

2. The Lollard Bible and Other Medieval Versions by Margaret Deanesly. M.A. Cambridge University Press, 1920/1966, p. VII..

3. Cambridge History of English and American literature in 18 volumes (1907-1921). Vol.II. The End of the Middle Ages, p.29-30.

4. Hotchkiss, V. Outlawed English. – In: Formatting the Word of God. Ed. by V. Hotchkiss and Ch. Ryrie. Dallas. 1998, p. 65.

5. The Cambridge History of English and American Literature, Vol. II., p. 30. Hargreaves, H. The Marginal Glosses to the Wycliffite New Testament. — Studia Neophilologica (Upsalla), 33, 1961, p. 300 also shares the opinion on the difficulties involved in reconstructing “the history of Wycliffe’s Bible”.

6. Wycliffite Manuscript. The New Testament. England, 1400-1450. Ed. by Bridwell library and Octavo edition. CD.1999

7. The Holy Bible, containing the Old and New Testament with the apocryphal books, in the earliest English versions made from the Latin Vulgate by John Wycliffe and his followers. Edited by J. Forshall and Fr. Madden. Vol. .IV. Oxford, MDCCCL. Although this edition was not used in our case, this author does not underestimate its value. It is a great publishing achievement, with an excellent introduction and analysis that is topical even today.

8. Literature on the subject quotes as such: New Testament, translated out of the Latin Vulgate by John Wyclif, about 1378. Ed. by John Lewis. London, 1731; New Testament translated from the Latin, in the year 1380 by John Wiclif, D.D. To which are prefixed Memoirs of the Life, Opinions, and Writings of Dr. Wiclif, and an Historical Account of the Saxon and English Versions of Scriptures, previous to opening of the fifteenth century. 4to. London, 1810; New Testament. The earlier version. By Lea Wilson. 4to. London, 1848; MS Bodley 959 Genesis-Baruch 3.20 in Earlier Version of the Wycliffite Bible. Ed. C. Linderg (Stockholm Studies in English, 6, 1959; 8, 1961; 10, 1963; 13, 1965; 20, 1969.

9. The Holy Bible, made from the Latin Vulgate by John Wyccliffe and his followers, vol. IV, p. 18.

10. Иванов, Й. Богомилски книги и легенди. София. 1925, с.113. The same fact is quoted in "Slovnίk jazyka staroslověnskeho. Lexicon linguae palaeslovenicae. t .II, p.322: "иносоуштьны" (Tetra-evangelium Nikojanum, Serbia XV, Cyr. Num.indicis A.-23).

11. Dцllinger, Ign. V. Dokumente vornehmlich zur Geschichte der Valdesier und Katharer herausgegeben. Munchen. T. II. Mьnchen, 1890, S. 38: “...dicendo in oratione Pater Noster: panem nostrum supersubstantialem”. This case was also quoted by Y. Ivanov.

12. One should mention here that there are only a few good interpretations of Bogomil and Cathar theology, including Raicho Karolev’s 19th century work, those of H. Puech and A. Vaillant, as well as Edina Bozoki, among others. In the case of Bulgaria, the cause was the fact that, after 1944, research of the Bogomil movement fell under Marxist interpretation, with their teaching seen above all as a social moevement. In the West, powerful Catholic influence was a barrier before studies of the finer peculiarities of dualistic philosophy. There is not s single study in this sense in Great Britain.

13. Puech, H. A. Vaillant. Le traite contre les Bogomiles de Cosmas le Prкtre. Paris. 1945, p. 245.

14. Patrologia Graeca, 130, col. 1313.

16. Giuraud, J. Cartulaire de Notre Dame de Prouilles, prйcйdй d’une йtude sur l’Albigeisme languedocien au XIIe et XIIIe siecles. T. 1-2. Paris. 1907, p. CXXII.

17. Schmidt, C. Histoire et doctrine de la secte des cathares ou albigeois. T. II. Paris-Geneve. 1849, p. 117.

18. Ibidem.

19. Confessio Magistri John Wycliff. — In: Fasciculi Zizaniorum Magistri Wycliff Cum Tritico. Ed. by Walter Shirley. London, 1858, p. 120.

20. PG, 130, col. 1313.

21. Seifert, L. Die Welte revolutionдre. Von Bogomil uber Huss zu Lenin. Wien. 1931.

22. Wycliffe, J. Summa in theologia. Tractatus tertius. De civili domino. London, MDCCCXXV, p. 373.

23. Great Voices of the Reformation (Anthology). New York, 1952, p. 27.

25. Deanesly, M. The Lollard Bible and other Medieval versions by Margaret Deanesly, M.A, Cambridge at the University press 1920/1966, p.VII.

26. Robinson, F. Commentary. – In: Wycliffite Manuscript. The New Testament. England, 1400-1450. Ed. by Bridwell library/Dallas/ and Octavo corporation.CD.1999, p.4.

27. Ibidem, p. 3.

28. Oxford English Dictionary, 1989, V. .I., p.241.

29. Ibidem.

30. Ibidem., p. 178.

31. Ibidem.

32. This was how the inquisitor Bernard Gui recorded that fundamental Cathar tenet: “…confingentes loco baptismi facti in aqua baptismum alium spiritualem, que vocant consolamentum Spiritus sancti. Gui, B. Op. cit., p.12. As to the view of the Lollards, cappelanus Robertus Cavell wrote the following in his confession: “Imprimis videlicet quod sacramentum Baptismi, factum in aqua secundum formam Ecclesia usitatam, modicum vel parum est ponderatum, quamcito anima infantis in utero matris est corpori unita, infuditur gracia Spiritus Sancti, per quam parvulus est sufficienter baptizatus.” Tanner, N. Heresy Trials in the Diocese of Norwich 1428-31. London, 1977, 94-95.

33. Ingressus fratris Kynyngham Carmelitae contra Wicclyf – in: Fasciculi Zizaniorum, p.5.

 34. XXIV Conclusiones Wycclyf damnatae Londoniis in synodo – Fasculi Zizaniorum, p.279. A similar statement is also made on p.264: sicut Graecos.

35. Wycliffe, J. Summa in theologia. Tractatus tertius. De civili domino. London. MDCCCXXV, p. 99.

36. Hearnshow, F. Some Great Political Idealists of the Christian Era. London, Bombay, Sidney (s.a.), 44-45.

37. Robinson, F. Commentary. — In: CD: Wycliffite Manuscript. The New Testament. England, 1400-1450. Ed. by Bridwell Library (Dallas) and Octavo Corporation, 1999, p. 4.

38. Лавров, П. Материалы по истории возникновения древнейшей славянской письменности. Ленинград, 1930, с.VII.

39. Ibidem

40. Hamilton, B. Wisdom from the East: the Reception by the Cathars of Eastern Dualist Texts. – In: Heresy and literacy. Cambridge, 1994/1996, p.51. By the way, in his article on the Lyonnaise Ritual Yordan Ivanov wrote that this peculiarity contained the Bogomil-Cathar (one could say the Greek) version of the Lord’s Prayer. Иванов, Й. Op. cit., p.112. See also p.3 of this article.

41. Кръстанов, Тр., А.-М. Тотоманова, И. Добрев. Ватикански палимпсест. София, 1997, с.101.

42. Fasciculi Zizaniorum, p. 190.

43. Hudson, A. 'Laicus literatus': the Paradox of Lollardy. – In: Heresy and Literacy, 1000-1530. Cambridge, 1994/1996.

44. Walter Brut’s beliefs principally coincide with the Dualist views: “the eucharist was primarily a memorial, papal pretensions to powers of absolution, along pontiff's claims to tempralities, demonstrated his identity with antichrist, war and legal execution were against Christian insistence on charity, oaths were illegal…the just layman, more outrageously to his readers, the just laywoman was a priest…he/Brut/ wonders why canon law and the fathers quoted there so often base themselves on the Old Testament shadow of the Law and not on the light of Christ gospel." Ibidem, 224-225.

 45. Ibidem, p. 223.

46. Ibidem, p. 228

47. Sanders, A. The Short Oxford History of English Literature. 1996, p.191

48. Ibidem

49. The Cambridge History of English and American Literature in 18 Volumes (1907–21). Volume IV. Prose and Poetry: Sir Thomas North to Michael Drayton, p.48

50. Sanders, op. cit., p.51

51. Encyclopaedia Britannica vol.3. 1970, p.584

52. Ibid., p.583

53. Sanders, A. op.cit., p.50