William Tyndale (Reformation Day 2013)

Wittenberg Door ^ | October 2013

[Gamecock]

"I defy the pope and all his laws; and, if God spares me, I will one day make the boy that drives the plow in England to know more of the Scriptures than the pope does!" So said translation pioneer William Tyndale.

Born near Dursley, Gloucestershire, UK, between 1484 and 1496, Tyndale developed a zeal to get the Bible into the hands of the common man—a passion for which he ultimately gave his life.

Educated at Oxford and Cambridge, Tyndale became fluent in at least seven languages. In 1522, the same year Luther translated the New Testament into German, Tyndale was an ordained Catholic priest serving John Walsh of Gloucestershire. It was during this time, when Tyndale was 28 years of age, that he began pouring over Erasmus’ Greek New Testament. The more he studied the more the doctrines of the Reformation became clear. And like a great fire kindled by a lighting strike, so Tyndale’s heart was set ablaze by the doctrines of grace:

By grace . . . we are plucked out of Adam the ground of all evil and graffed in Christ, the root of all goodness. In Christ God loved us, his elect and chosen, before the world began and reserved us unto the knowledge of his Son and of his holy gospel; and when the gospel is preached to us openeth our hearts and giveth us grace to believe, and putteth the spirit of Christ in us: and we know him as our Father most merciful, and consent to the law and love it inwardly in our heart and desire to fulfill it and sorrow because we do not.

Rome’s Opposition to an English Translation

Nearly 200 years earlier, starting in 1382, John Wycliff and his followers (known as Lollards) distributed hand-written English translations of Scripture. The Archbishop of Canterbury responded by having Wycliffe and his writings condemned.

But Rome was not finished. In 1401, Parliament passed a law making heresy a capital offence. Seven years later, the Archbishop of Canterbury made it a crime to “translate any text of the Scripture into English or any other tongue . . . and that no man can read any such book . . . in part or in whole." The sentence was burning. Across Europe, the flames were ignited and the Lollards were all but destroyed. Rome was determined to keep God’s Word out of the people’s hands.

. . . as a boy of 11 watched the burning of a young man in Norwich for possessing the Lord’s Prayer in English . . . John Foxe records . . . seven Lollards burned at Coventry in 1519 for teaching their children the Lord’s Prayer in English.

John Bale (1495-1563)

Rome was not finished with Wycliffe either: 44 years after his death, the pope ordered Wycliffe’s bones exhumed, burned, and his ashes scattered.

Tyndale was truly in great danger.

Tyndale’s End

Fearing for his life, Tyndale fled London for Brussels in 1524 where he continued his translation work for the next 12 years. Tyndale’s time in exile was dreadful, as he describes in a 1531 letter:

. . . my pains . . . my poverty . . . my exile out of mine natural country, and bitter absence from my friends . . . my hunger, my thirst, my cold, the great danger wherewith I am everywhere encompassed, and finally . . . innumerable other hard and sharp fighting’s which I endure.

On the evening of May 21, 1535, Tyndale was betrayed to the authorities by a man he trusted, Henry Philips. For the next 18 months, Tyndale lived a prisoner in Vilvorde Castle, six miles outside of Brussles. The charge was heresy.

The verdict came in August, 1536. He was condemned as a heretic and defrocked as a priest. On or about October 6, 1536, Tyndale was tied to a stake, strangled by an executioner, and then his body burned. He was 42 years old. His last words were, “Lord! Open the King of England’s Eyes!”

Tyndale’s Legacy

Tyndale’s translations were the foundations for Miles Coverdale’s Great Bible (1539) and later for the Geneva Bible (1557). As a matter of fact, about 90% of the Geneva Bible’s New Testement was Tyndale’s work. In addition, the 54 scholars who produced the 1611 Authorized Version (King James) bible relied heavily upon Tyndale’s translations, although they did not give him credit.

Tyndale is also known as a pioneer in the biblical languages. He introduced several words into the English language, such as Jehovah, Passover, scapegoat, and atonement.

It has been asserted that Tyndale's place in history has not yet been sufficiently recognized as a translator of the Scriptures, as an apostle of liberty, and as a chief promoter of the Reformation in England. In all these respects his influence has been singularly under-valued, at least to Protestants.

[vladimir998]

You’re welcome! :)

[annalex]

I remember you. I believe you were quite hostile to the Church, no?

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the word of life: [2] For the life was manifested; and we have seen and do bear witness, and declare unto you the life eternal, which was with the Father, and hath appeared to us: [3] That which we have seen and have heard, we declare unto you, that you also may have fellowship with us, and our fellowship may be with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. [4] And these things we write to you, that you may rejoice, and your joy may be full. (1 John 1)

[vladimir998]

“Your point was Latin was used.”

Yes, and?

“The burden of proof is on you not me.”

There is no burden on me at all. I made no claim that needs to be proved.

“You stated the Roman Empire spoke Latin and that is why the early Scriptures were in Latin.”

No. I never said that. First, I doubt I ever would have said “the Roman Empire spoke Latin” since empires don’t speak. People speak. Empires don’t. Let’s go back and look at what was actually posted to you since you’re not getting it right, okay?

Here is what you wrote in #23:

“When Christ told the disciples to preach the Gospel to the world I don’t think He meant Latin.”

In post #26 I responded with:

“Except when preaching to Romans, right?”

Now, did I say anything there about “the Roman Empire spoke Latin and that is why the early Scriptures were in Latin”?

Nope. Next:

“And what was the Empire which ran most of the known world at that time? Oh, yeah, it was the ROMAN Empire. And what language was used in much of the Roman Empire? Oh, right, Latin.”

There too, did I say anything like “the Roman Empire spoke Latin and that is why the early Scriptures were in Latin”?

Nope.

“I called bunk on that and you tried to steer the convo elsewhere.”

No, not at all. I never, EVER, said anything like “the Roman Empire spoke Latin and that is why the early Scriptures were in Latin.”

This is easy to prove. Show me where I ever, AND I MEAN EVER, claimed “the Roman Empire spoke Latin and that is why the early Scriptures were in Latin.”

You will fail, utterly, to do so.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

“Actually the Church still has that authority - just as the Apostles did - and I do not begrudge it in the least.”

---

But apparently the RCC isn’t very good at enforcing it, considering I have a print copy of my KJV, as well as, digitally, the ESV, the LXX, Vulgate, Tanach, Webster, YLT, Textus Receptus, and translations in Spanish, Chinese and Korean.

You can bellow all you like, but they won’t come off my hard drive.

“What gets me is that no Christian - if he is in fact a Christian - would doubt the Apostles’ right to order a Christian to give up a heretical translation or not be in good standing in the Church.”

---

But you limit the authority of your Bishops! Because it isn’t just a way to combat bad translations, but to keep even good translations out of the hands of people whom they judge to be so incompetent that they can’t be trusted to read anything for themselves!

In 1584 Pius IV published the index prepared by the commission mentioned above. Herein ten rules are laid down, of which the fourth reads thus: “Inasmuch as it is manifest from experience that if the Holy Bible, translated into the vulgar tongue, be indiscriminately allowed to every one, the rashness of men will cause more evil than good to arise from it, it is, on this point, referred to the judgment of the bishops or inquisitors, who may, by the advice of the priest or confessor, permit the reading of the Bible translated into the vulgar tongue by Catholic authors, to those persons whose faith and piety they apprehend will be augmented and not injured by it; and this permission must be had in writing. But if any shall have the presumption to read or possess it without such permission, he shall not receive absolution until he have first delivered up such Bible to the ordinary.”

This idea that they are “freely available,” yet they need permission even to read them, is a contradiction in terms. For if one needs permission for something, they are not free to it, since if you let men be free to it, the Bible has a tendency of making Protestants out of them.

[vladimir998]

No problem. The most important thing about his execution was that he was NOT executed for translating the Bible. That was a myth invented by Protestants at a later date.

[dangus]

Yeah, it was Martin Luther and not Gutenberg. Not.

[MrChips]

I doubt that was me. I might have put up a contrary argument or two, but not to my recollection, and I was always very an “Anglo-Catholic” as an Episcopalian, developed an early love in college (late 70’s) for the Middle Ages, wrote a very Catholic thesis for my M.A. in history in 1996, prior to becoming Catholic in 2000, and had a father who was a Notre Dame grad. So, I hardly would have been vituperatively antagonistic..

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

““Though, how this excuses the ignorance of your Priests and Bishops in those days even of the very basics, I know not.”

It doesn’t.”

---

In other words, your statements are utterly irrelevant, and don’t encourage much trust in the vaunted Catholic Church, especially in those days. Thank God though, that the Reformation bid men to be responsible for themselves, as a free society should.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

“Yeah, it was Martin Luther and not Gutenberg. Not.”

---

And it was your fat Bishop, most likely basing his decision based on the social class of the individual, who decided if you were worthy to read the Bible for yourself without constant supervision of a Priest.

[xzins]

All this law did was prevent any private individual from publishing his own translation of Scripture without the approval of the Church. Which, as it turns out, is just what William Tyndale did.

This is from the link you provided. Do you agree with this law that's mentioned? If I want to publish a translation of the bible, should I be considered a law-breaker?

[dangus]

You’re using all your false presumptions to argue for your false presumptions.

1. The bible was not prohibited. Wycliffe’s translation was prohibited because it was false.

2. Yes, English grammar was taught first... as a spoken language. You can read any medieval English text and quickly disabuse yourself of the notion that anyone taught anyone English grammar or spelling, because there was no standardization of either to be taught!

3. Inasmuch as people read Latin, of course the church bibles were in Latin. But there were plenty of glosses.

4. The Catholic church did as much as it could to get the bible into as many hands as they could. If a bible cost six figures to print today, do you think you could walk off with a church’s bible without so much as asking permission? A bible took a full year’s labor of a highly trained monk to create. Yet the Catholic church ran churches, libraries, seminaries, universities, etc., to help facilitate sharing of resources. It published breviaries consisting of the gospels, OT liturgical readings, psalms, and epistles. It constructed church windows and statues as mnemonic devices, and trained countless catechists how to interpret and spread that knowledge of iconography.

[dangus]

>> And it was your fat Bishop, most likely basing his decision based on the social class of the individual, who decided if you were worthy to read the Bible for yourself without constant supervision of a Priest. <<

I’m sure you’d let anyone just walk off with a treasure worth tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars. YOu’re so stuck in a modernist mindset that everyone learns to read English, books are cheap, and so forth, that you can’t even imagine a different time and place.

[vladimir998]

“But apparently the RCC isn’t very good at enforcing it,”

The Catholic Church does not enforce its own laws and rules among those not bound by them. Man, no wonder you post so many errors if you’re wrong on so elementary a point as that.

“You can bellow all you like, but they won’t come off my hard drive.”

And no one is trying to get them off your hard drive. Maybe you should wake up to the real world. You sound like you believe there are black helicopters chasing you.

“But you limit the authority of your Bishops!”

No, their power is already limited by their own office. That’s just how it is. Are you really as much in the dark as you seem?

“Because it isn’t just a way to combat bad translations, but to keep even good translations out of the hands of people whom they judge to be so incompetent that they can’t be trusted to read anything for themselves!”

Let’s say that is true. And? Wouldn’t bishops have the natural authority to say that a person who is not catechized is simply not equipped for something? Seriously, why is that an issue? I have given Catholic Bibles to people so that they would put away their old Protestant or Jehovah’s Witness Bibles. And? Was that wrong? No, not all. I have given some Catholics Bibles I knew they would understand because others out there were too complicated for them. So? I would not deny the same possibility to a bishop nor his binding power to do so with his flock. Why would you?

“This idea that they are “freely available,” yet they need permission even to read them, is a contradiction in terms.”

No. I think driver’s licenses are freely available just not available for free. The two are not the same. Also, the person acquired the Bible first, and then got permission for it by submitting it to the Bishop for what we would call a nihil obstat today. That means the Bibles were freely available for purchase or trade.

“For if one needs permission for something, they are not free to it, since if you let men be free to it, the Bible has a tendency of making Protestants out of them.”

Actually, no. I have known more than a few Protestants who studied the Bible and became Catholics. I also, however, know Protestants who studied the Bible and lost their faith becoming agnostics, atheists or joining some non-Christian religion. There are Catholics who that has happened to as well.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

From the 16th century:

[vladimir998]

“In other words, your statements are utterly irrelevant,”

No, they are relevant. I really don’t know how to do “irrelevant”.

“and don’t encourage much trust in the vaunted Catholic Church,”

They encourage trust in the truth - and that always leads to the Catholic Church rather than some johnny-come-lately Protestant sect.

“especially in those days. Thank God though, that the Reformation bid men to be responsible for themselves, as a free society should.”

Actually the Catholic Church always called on men to be responsible for themselves. What Protestants sects do - even if unintentionally - is call sin not sin (e.g. contraception, divorce and remarriage, abortion, gay marriage, etc.), reduce individual responsibility through doctrines such as “once saved always saved”, and generally distort Christianity.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

“The Catholic church did as much as it could to get the bible into as many hands as they could.”

---

Apparently not very well, as the other link pointed out, since literacy did not skyrocket until as a result of the Reformation.

[redleghunter]

MrChips I was employing a bit of humor. If the argument was the peasants were too ignorant to understand the Scriptures in their own language, then how did Peter feel being a humble fishermen.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

“I’m sure you’d let anyone just walk off with a treasure worth tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars. YOu’re so stuck in a modernist mindset that everyone learns to read English, books are cheap, and so forth, that you can’t even imagine a different time and place.”

---

And you’re so stuck in the Monarchist mindset, that would have us believe that no one could read English anyway, so it wasn’t worthwhile to provide any- while at the same time, arguing that they already had them.

[vladimir998]

“And it was your fat Bishop, most likely basing his decision based on the social class of the individual, who decided if you were worthy to read the Bible for yourself without constant supervision of a Priest.”

Well, that “fat bishop” (oh, surely that’s not a sign of anti-Catholic bigotry now is it?) apparently had no problem with 22 Catholic Bible editions printed before Luther’s so he apparently wanted lots of people to have them.

I’m going to sign off now for tonight. Tomorrow I have to get up early to help two friends to sell Catholic books - including Bibles - to several hundred people at an all weekend conference. A number of the people there are converts. It should be fun. Take care.

[xzins]

The bible was not prohibited. Wycliffe’s translation was prohibited because it was false.

Do you think this would be a good law today or a bad law that the government gets to decide the quality of a bible translation?