Talk:Tyndale Bible

Add topic
Active discussions


Please read WP:LEAD. What exactly is the Tyndale Bible and why is it significant? The introductory paragraph should address this. howcheng {chat} 06:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The edit by MisfitToys addresses this point and is satisfactory.
The Church's objections to Tyndale's translation began before Henry VIII's break with Rome, and continued afterwards. The reference to the Roman Catholic Church immediately after the Character heading was therefore not entirely correct. My original "Church" avoids a complicated explanation and is preferable, so I reverted. The other references to "Roman Catholic" or "Catholic Church" in the paragraph are correct.EEye 00:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the bit (in the discussion of penance v. repentance) about the Church requiring people to buy indulgences. I followed the reference, which mentioned only a belief in the efficacy of indulgences, but said nothing about the purchase of indulgences, or even of their necessity. The Church has never officially advocated the selling of indulgences, neither has she ever taught that they were necessary for salvation. Wmdiem (talk) 23:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

where is Henry VIII's reaction?Edit

The King in 1531 issued an edict declaring: "the translation of the Scripture corrupted by William Tyndale should be utterly expelled, rejected, and put away out of the hands of the people, and not be suffered to go abroad among his subjects."[1]
This was confirmed in 1543. "in the spring of 1543 Parliament passed an act "for the advancement of true religion and for the abolishment of the contrary", which banned "the crafty, false and untrue translation of Tyndale"". [2]--Domics (talk) 10:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Does anybody know when this ban was lifted and it was allowed to publish and possess the Tyndale Bible?--Domics (talk) 06:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Rescued Thou from obscurity?Edit

The following sentence in the penultimate paragraph gives a misleading impression: “Tyndale used thou and never you as the singular second-person pronoun in his work (usage that was later reflected in the very influential King James Version), which had the double effect of rescuing thou from complete obscurity and also imbuing it with an air of religious solemnity that is antithetical to its former sense of familiarity or disrespect.”

It suggests that Tyndale was particularly influential in this usage when it's doubtful that he was. The Wycliffe Bible a hundred years earlier and the Authorized Version (King James) 80 years later used the same distinctions as Tyndale between Thou and Ye, Thee and You. Like these earlier and later translations, Tyndale was simply using the forms that were standard for that period.

Secondly, the words “rescuing Thou from complete obscurity” suggest that Thou was falling into disuse in the 1520s. This seems unlikely and is not supported by the source cited, which says Thou was no longer used in standard English (as opposed to dialect) by the 1700s, (ie nearly 200 years later.)

Compare Otto Jespersen's Progress in Language, published 1894, which says in a long and influential study of English personal pronouns: “The use of the singular and the plural pronouns from Chaucer's times till Shakespeare's, and even till about the middle of the (18th) century… corresponded pretty nearly to that of the French tu and vous; but it was looser, as very frequently one person addressed the same other person now with thou and now with ye, according as the mood or the tone of the conversation changed ever so little.” See the full reference here:

I'd suggest deleting this sentence as it seems misleading and is peripheral to Tyndale's work and life.

By contrast, Tyndale's use of “Ye” instead of the “You” that had already begun to replace it in the 14th and 15th centuries as the nominative plural might be of more interest. For example, he writes “Blessed are ye [nominative] when men revile you [accusative], and persecute you...”

Perhaps there might be a case for saying he helped to save this form from obscurity. But this is probably not the article to discuss it.Adrian Robson (talk) 15:50, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Percentage still unknown?Edit

"...It has been suggested that around 90% of the King James Version (or at least of the parts translated by Tyndale) is from Tyndale’s works..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:31, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


We are told "Tyndale began a translation into English using a Greek text compiled by Erasmus from several manuscripts older and more authoritative than the Latin Vulgate of Jerome (c. AD 340–420), the only translation authorized by the Roman Catholic Church.[3][4]"— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Note that almost all Protestants from the 16th century to the late 19th were using the Erasmus Greek New Testament.
This was translated from the Latin Vulgate in about 26 places. The Greek manuscripts used by Erasmus were mostly late. He hardly used a slightly older manuscript as he was suspicious of it. He preferred the majority of the few that he had, with the late, Byzantine Greek text. See our own Wikipedia editor Leszek Janczuk, a Protestant expert on NT Greek manuscripts. This is about translations from the Vulgate by Erasmus.
See . This refers to the small number of Greek manuscripts used by Erasmus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Many translations into Coptic, Syriac, Ethiopic, Armenian and other languages were and are official Catholic translations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Challenges to Catholic doctrineEdit

Last paragraph. Why is it so hard to post citations. Just add them, if you have none, then you cant add to Wikipedia. Please remove it or add the citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:37, 8 December 2018 (UTC) No!! The correct response to text lacking citation is to delete it out of hand. In fact, most of this article should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:00, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Trouble with dates and NPOVEdit

I have two issues.

First Betrayed to church officials in 1536, he was defrocked in an elaborate public ceremony and turned over to the civil authorities to be strangled to death and burned at the stake. His last words are said to have been, "Lord! Open the King of England's eyes."

One might think this happened in England. However, it was in Flanders. And the year is wrong, or the punctuation. The "elaborate public ceremony" does not seem important to me: all public church ceremonies of the time were elaborate. What is more important is that there was a very lengthy process of discussion of the issues, made with everyone aware that if Tyndale put himself outside the protection of the Church, the civil authorities wanted him dead.

A better version would be

In 1535 in Flanders, Tyndale was betrayed by an Englishman to local authorities and imprisoned. Catholic theologians and he spent almost a year and a half attempting to convince each other. This failing, in 1636 he was declared a heretic for his Lutheran views and defrocked. The Hapsburg civil authorities then took him and sentenced him to be strangled to death and the body burned. His last words are said to have been, "Lord! Open the King of England's eyes."

For attestation, see

Second, the section Challenges to Catholic doctrine seems one-sided. (It was Erasmus who first translated ecclesia as congregatio, and presbyter as elder, and who wanted the ploughboy to sing psalms in the vernacular: and Erasmus published these in his New Testament with sponsorship and endorsement by Pope Leo! Thomas More made it clear that it is intent not the words: Erasmus used "congretatio" to translate the Greek to Latin because he considered Latin did not have a good enough existing word, however English has the adequate existing word "church". What Tyndale did was go beyond what the actual compiler of the Greek (and translator of the Latin), Erasmus, had meant and was inventing word distinctions for sectarian reasons. See p145)

I am not sure how to correct this section to make it more NPOV.

Rick Jelliffe