First, the Wycliffe Bible was a number of versions all attempting to translate the Vulgate into Middle English, not so as to provide access to the Scripture to the uneducated but as a platform to rationalize his differences with the Vatican.
To suggest that there was a literate audience for any English writings in the 14th century is a stretch. Those that were literate were educated in Latin and French (because of their Norman roots). Further to suggest that there was a single common English vernacular across England is preposterous. As different as the accents of the various regions of England are today in the 14th century they were incomprehensible. Peasant classes spoke languages that were still largely Anglo-Saxon, Fresian, Norse, or Celtic in vocabulary and grammar.
“First, the Wycliffe Bible was a number of versions all attempting to translate the Vulgate into Middle English...”
No. There was essentially one extensive revision of the initial attempt, with the first being overly literal.
“...not so as to provide access to the Scripture to the uneducated but as a platform to rationalize his differences with the Vatican.”
On the contrary. Every attempt was made by the Lollards to get the scripture into the hands of the common man. It was not an academic attempt to show the Vatican was wrong, but to persuade the masses by giving the masses the source material for Wycliffe’s beliefs.
Wycliffe and his followers believed that the more men knew of God’s Word, the less they would follow the Catholic Church. They believed the more men read, the more they would agree with Wycliffe.
And since the Catholic Church responded by trying to prevent the scriptures from being translated into the vernacular - see the 1408 Oxford Constitutions, pushed by the then-Catholic Archbishop of Canterbury - it is hard to disagree.
The Catholic Church argued that scripture was too subtle for unlearned men to understand. One can agree or disagree, but it isn’t right to pretend that the Catholic Church WANTED commoners to read scripture.
“To suggest that there was a literate audience for any English writings in the 14th century is a stretch.”
Ah...then there must have been no market for the Wycliffe Bible, and it ceased existence because no one wanted it. But that is NOT the way it worked, is it?
“Further to suggest that there was a single common English vernacular across England is preposterous.”
I’ve suggested no such thing. It was a challenge that Tyndale also faced, until his translation proved so popular that it united the dialects into his common tongue - as Luther’s translation did for Germany.
But the problems with translation are not the point. The point was that the Lollards considered them a challenge to overcome, because it was important to them for commoners to read scripture, while the Catholic Church viewed them as an excuse to do nothing.
Remember - the unlearned Apostles of Jesus’ time knew their scriptures. The problem wasn’t that it was impossible. The problem was that it wasn’t tried - and it wasn’t tried because the Catholic Church wasn’t interested in scripture.
A survey taken of English priests around 1500 found 9 of 311 did not know there were 10 Commandments, 33 did not know were to find them, and 168 did not know them. 30 did not know that Jesus spoke the Lord’s Prayer.
The Lollards had some success, in spite of various local but severe persecutions. Had the Catholic Church taken the same approach, success would have been guaranteed. But the Catholic Church did not WANT commoners to read scripture.