Ye Scholars, Hearken

𝔗𝔬 𝔶ͤ ſ𝔠𝔬𝔩𝔢𝔯𝔢 𝔞𝔶𝔢𝔫𝔢𝔰 𝔪𝔶 𝔟𝔦𝔟𝔩𝔦𝔬ð𝔢𝔠𝔢:

𝔄𝔵𝔦𝔱𝔥 𝔜 𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔢, 𝔳𝔫𝔡𝔲𝔯ſ𝔱õ𝔡𝔦ſ𝔱 𝔱𝔥𝔬𝔲 𝔫𝔬𝔱 𝔙𝔙𝔶𝔠𝔩𝔦𝔣? ℑ𝔣 𝔱𝔥𝔬𝔲 𝔡𝔬𝔦ſ𝔱 𝔫𝔬𝔱, 𝔳𝔳𝔥𝔦 𝔡𝔬𝔦ſ𝔱 𝔱𝔥𝔬𝔲 ſ𝔠𝔥𝔢𝔳𝔳𝔦ſ𝔱 𝔪𝔢 𝔳𝔳𝔥𝔞𝔱 𝔱𝔬 𝔨𝔫𝔬𝔳𝔳𝔢? 𝔜 𝔳𝔳𝔬𝔱 𝔫𝔬𝔱 𝔳𝔳𝔥𝔦 𝔜 ſ𝔠𝔥𝔲𝔩𝔡𝔦ſ𝔱 𝔥𝔢𝔯𝔨𝔫𝔢 𝔲𝔫𝔱𝔬 𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔢. 𝔙𝔫𝔡𝔲𝔯ſ𝔱õ𝔡𝔦ſ𝔱 𝔱𝔥𝔬𝔲? ℑ𝔣 𝔱𝔥𝔬𝔲 𝔡𝔬𝔦ſ𝔱, 𝔤𝔢ſſ𝔦ſ𝔱 𝔱𝔥𝔬𝔲 𝔳𝔳𝔬𝔬ſ𝔱 𝔞𝔟𝔬𝔲𝔢 𝔞𝔩𝔩𝔢? 𝔙𝔙𝔥𝔞𝔱 𝔨𝔫𝔬𝔳𝔳𝔦ſ𝔱 𝔱𝔥𝔬𝔲, 𝔳𝔳𝔥𝔦𝔠𝔥𝔢 𝔳𝔳𝔢𝔢 𝔨𝔫𝔬𝔳𝔳𝔢𝔫 𝔫𝔬𝔱? 𝔙𝔙𝔥𝔞𝔱 𝔳𝔫𝔡𝔲𝔯ſ𝔱õ𝔡𝔦ſ𝔱 𝔱𝔥𝔬𝔲, 𝔳𝔳𝔥𝔦𝔠𝔥𝔢 𝔳𝔳𝔢𝔢 𝔳𝔳𝔦𝔱𝔢𝔫 𝔫𝔬𝔱?

Transcribed in Roman type.

To yͤ ſcolere ayenes my biblioðece:

Axith Y thee, vndurſtõdiſt thou not VVyclif? If thou doiſt not, vvhi doiſt thou ſchevviſt me vvhat to knovve? Y vvot not vvhi Y ſchuldiſt herkne unto thee. Vndurſtõdiſt thou? If thou doiſt, geſſiſt thou vvooſt aboue alle? VVhat knovviſt thou, vvhiche vvee knovven not? VVhat vndurſtõdiſt thou, vvhiche vvee vviten not?

The reflection above gives vent to something on which I have thought much, but perhaps posted little, directly. It alludes to questions I want to ask every scholar who undertakes to oppose the normal use of the King James Bible by those of us who choose to do so. It includes the particular reference to the Wycliffe Bible because I first asked it in context of a video posted by Marke VVarde. Mark questioned what a preacher would do if he stumbled upon a group of Christians who insisted on the exclusive use the Wycliffe Bible. It provided a ready foil, a well-dressed strawman, and some hazy humour as he read from the Wycliffe Bible with an “English accent.” However, a little-known Bible that has not been read—even looked at—by more than a few in over 500 years provides little in common with a Bible that has been in constant use from its dawning to the present. Yet there always are scholars ready and willing to advance their “ignorance” as a hand-up offered to us “more ignorant” to solve all our problems and fulfill all our needs. Wherefore (“for that reason,” not “why”) I have built a very large front porch at the entrance a small house of two questions. Here they are:

1. If you cannot understand the King James translation of the Bible, why should I take your advice? 
2. If you can understand the King James translation of the Bible, why do you think I cannot?