N
NotWorthy
Guest
If Mr. Tyndale’s translation was so good, why was it necessary to compile the King James Version?
Notworthy
Notworthy
- Status
D
Digitonomy
Guest
If you could specify your source for this claim that the translation was “so good,” that might help clarify things. But certainly one reason that there were subsequent translations was that Mr Tyndale got burned at the stake before he was able to finish his Old Testament.
S
stanley123
Guest
The question I was considering concerned as to how the punishment fit the crime. It appears that for the crime of ruining a young boys life there is a simple reprimand, but for the crime of mistranslating the Bible there is burning alive at the stake. I was considering the question of how to reconcile the punishment fitting the crime.
S
stanley123
Guest
I was not aware of slinging mud. The question was asked as to whether or not the Church was against Bible reading. I am simply bringing up the historical point that Mr. Tyndale was burned at the stake after he had attempted a translation of the Bible. The response was that he was burned because the translation was inaccurate. However, my personal opinion is that it is better to discuss these inaccuracies in the open, rather than to burn the person at the stake for that. Personally, i wanted to say that I am opposed to burning people alive at the stake.
Still, I would like to know what are the 2000 inaccuracies (or even a few of them) in the translation of Mr. Tyndale that caused him to suffer this extreme punishment?
S
Sherlock
Guest
You’re being disengenous. First, as others have pointed out, the Church did not burn Tyndale at the stake. Secondly, it was not the attempt at translation, but the distortions he brought in that was his crime. “Innacuracies” suggests typos and translating errors. But, facts aren’t important if you want to throw mud at the Church…
You wrote: “The question I was considering concerned as to how the punishment fit the crime. It appears that for the crime of ruining a young boys life there is a simple reprimand, but for the crime of mistranslating the Bible there is burning alive at the stake.”
Why are you comparing twentieth-century views about punishment to those centuries earlier? Do you have any evidence to suggest that pederasts were treated any kindlier then than now? Good grief, just look at how the Royal Navy dealt with pederasts in its ranks in the enlightened 19th century, long after Tyndale’s time: death.
S
stanley123
Guest
In the case you have mentioned, this is what I would consider as a punishment fitting the crime, even today. For a translation of the Bible, I would oppose the burning of someone at the stake for that. I would be in favor of open discussion of the points of contention. I am only giving my personal opinion on it. By the way, no one has actually pointed out what were those errors of Mr. Tyndale in translation. Someone indicated that there were 2000 errors? But I haven’t seen these 2000 errors. Has anyone actually seen these 2000 mistranslated passages or know what they were?
For example, I heard (but I did not check it) that one of the errors involved the mistranslation of the passage:
Peace on earth to men of goodwill.
The mistranslation runs like this:
Peace on earth. goodwill to men.
Now I would not be in favor of burning someone alive, because they use the phrase:
Peace on earth. goodwill to men.
True, it is not accurate, but still, I would offer my personal opinion that this punishment of burning alive at the stake is too severe for the crime indicated.
Z
Zooey
Guest
We need to remember my point in my earlier post, that Tyndale was the victim of the English crown’s desire to control what Bibles were available. The Catholic Church would only too soon meet the wrath of the English crown as well, which was the beginning of the separation of the Anglican Church from the Catholic…
When William Tyndale was a problem to an English king, he arranged for him to be executed. When the pope became a problem to an English king, the Catholic Church found itself being attacked by said king…Thus began the Church of England.
The problem with most anti-Catholics is that they refuse to recognize that the government, not the church, was the instigater of these things. (Admittedly, being Welsh & Irish has made me a
tad jaundiced on the subject of the British monarchy… I 
never said I was perfect).
The King James Bible was the result of King James’ desire for a Bible without anti-monarchical notes coinciding with the desire of C of E churchmen’s desire for a standardized translation of the Scriptures. Earlier English Bibles were filled with notes that subtly (or blatantly) attacked the monarchy. Hence, the death of Tyndale.
All of which has zero, zilch, nada, to do with the Catholic Church supposedly trying to keep the Bible out of the hands of the “common people”…who weren’t reading the Bible, actually, because, well,
, duh, they couldn’t read…
I would also like to second the reminders that we are not talking about the 21st century here; we are talking about the Middle Ages. Back then, kings were no figurehead, people were at times executed for stealing a loaf of bread, and the general opinion of the rich & powerful in England was that if you couldn’t read Latin or French, you shouldn’t be reading at all…
English, you see, was the poor stepchild of languages in England…Many a titled Englishman bragged of not being able to speak English properly, much less read it. They read Latin & spoke French…An attitude that seems mad to us, only because we live in the computer age, where English, not the English king, as it were, “rules the roost”.
OK, Celtic
rant over…
When William Tyndale was a problem to an English king, he arranged for him to be executed. When the pope became a problem to an English king, the Catholic Church found itself being attacked by said king…Thus began the Church of England.
The problem with most anti-Catholics is that they refuse to recognize that the government, not the church, was the instigater of these things. (Admittedly, being Welsh & Irish has made me a
tad jaundiced on the subject of the British monarchy… I never said I was perfect).The King James Bible was the result of King James’ desire for a Bible without anti-monarchical notes coinciding with the desire of C of E churchmen’s desire for a standardized translation of the Scriptures. Earlier English Bibles were filled with notes that subtly (or blatantly) attacked the monarchy. Hence, the death of Tyndale.
All of which has zero, zilch, nada, to do with the Catholic Church supposedly trying to keep the Bible out of the hands of the “common people”…who weren’t reading the Bible, actually, because, well,
, duh, they couldn’t read…I would also like to second the reminders that we are not talking about the 21st century here; we are talking about the Middle Ages. Back then, kings were no figurehead, people were at times executed for stealing a loaf of bread, and the general opinion of the rich & powerful in England was that if you couldn’t read Latin or French, you shouldn’t be reading at all…
English, you see, was the poor stepchild of languages in England…Many a titled Englishman bragged of not being able to speak English properly, much less read it. They read Latin & spoke French…An attitude that seems mad to us, only because we live in the computer age, where English, not the English king, as it were, “rules the roost”.
OK, Celtic
rant over…
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Stanley, please. You’re the one doubting whether Wycliff’s bible was accurate or not, so you go prove that it has as little a difference as the “goodwill” quote. We, on the other hand, trust our Church Leaders. Do you honestly think that the Church picked Wycliff out of a crowd, condemned him, and then burned him without giving him a chance to change his ways?
No, they found the book filled not with inaccuracies, but deliberate distortions. They brought Mr. Wycliff to task, and he refused to admit the error of his ways.
The proof, I’m afraid, lies in the fact that the Church did not condemn other vernacular translations either in England or in other parts of Europe, with 1 or 2 other exceptions.
Notworthy
No, they found the book filled not with inaccuracies, but deliberate distortions. They brought Mr. Wycliff to task, and he refused to admit the error of his ways.
The proof, I’m afraid, lies in the fact that the Church did not condemn other vernacular translations either in England or in other parts of Europe, with 1 or 2 other exceptions.
Notworthy
Z
Zooey
Guest
I have to point out that we are NOT talking about someone being burned alive; we are talking about someone who was “strangled & burned”; Tyndale was dead when he was burned.
This may seem like merely an academic point to some; I strongly
suspect that it seemed like a * world* of difference to Mr Tyndale.
S
stanley123
Guest
OK, so Mr Tyndale was strangled and burned after translating the Bible. Now I did check his translation of Luke 2, vs14. The correct translation is:
Luke 2:14-“Glory to God in the highest, peace on earth toward men of good will.”
However, Mr. Tyndale’s translation is something like:
“Glory to God on high and peace on earth and unto men rejoicing.”
It is exactly like the following:
“14 Glory to God an hye and peace on the erth: and vnto men reioysynge.”
It is true that this translation is a bit off. But I don’t see where it would endanger someone’s salvation and, in my personal opinion, I would consider that the strangulation of a man and then burning him at the stake would be somewhat of an extreme punishment for this crime of mistranslation. Personally, and once again, it is only my opinion on it, I would be in favor of a discussion of the issues involved in the translations, rather than strangling someone to death and burning him at the stake because his translation is a bit off. It just seems a bit extreme to me.
For the entire Tyndale Bible online you may go to:
wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/tyndale/
or
wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/tyndale/Tyndale.pdf
Z
Zooey
Guest
I have to say that I very much doubt that the crowned head of England gave the hindquarters of a rodent with a hairless tail about anybody’s salvation (including, most likely, their own) !
They cared a very great deal about the consolidation of power in their own hot little hands…
Tyndale’s translation favored the common man’s rights over against those of the government; he was among those who were sympathetic to the various movements to limit the power of the crown. (So did any number of other translations throw their weight behind various political factions).
The King James version favored the supporters of King James. The Bishops’ Bible favored the English bishops. The Geneva Bible favored Calvinism. Tyndale favored the various peasant uprisings which had panicked the powers that be at Court on several occasions.
The king did what monarchs could do in those days…he sent out agents to entrap and/or kill Tyndale. They succeeded, & the Crown was happy. Now, this sounds like a time & place I am glad to have missed living in; I like being an American, I disapprove of royalty in general, & ( true Celt that I am) British royalty in particular.
Tyndale’s Bible was part excuse, part politics (of the time) as usual. (The death penalty was common as crabgrass & nobody thought anything of it. Such were the times).
But to say that Tyndale was executed for “mistranslating the Bible” is simply not taking into account the political currents swirling around him. He was a supporter of ordinary people & a critic of both king & others in governmental power.
One king of England muttered “Who will rid me of this pestilent priest?”, & Thomas a Becket was murdered in the cathedral. Henry the 8th wanted Anne Boleyn, & the English church split from Rome…and a lot of people died, including Thomas More.
Kings did that kind of thing. They did it a lot. (Some more than others).
My point is not that we should execute people willy nilly; it is that, in the day, people were, in fact, killed for all manner of things, some serious, some frivolous. But, that was “jolly olde England”, from whose tender mercies, my own ancestors fled–some with a price on their heads.
This is not the fault of the church, Catholic, Anglican, or whatever. It was the fault of the system, which placed the king in a position of nigh-unto godlike power. Let’s put the blame where the blame lies–with the politicians…Some things, the more they change…the more they stay the same…Except, back then, this was 
legal.
hindquarters of a rodent with a hairless tail about anybody’s salvation (including, most likely, their own) !They cared a very great deal about the consolidation of power in their own hot little hands…
Tyndale’s translation favored the common man’s rights over against those of the government; he was among those who were sympathetic to the various movements to limit the power of the crown. (So did any number of other translations throw their weight behind various political factions).
The King James version favored the supporters of King James. The Bishops’ Bible favored the English bishops. The Geneva Bible favored Calvinism. Tyndale favored the various peasant uprisings which had panicked the powers that be at Court on several occasions.
The king did what monarchs could do in those days…he sent out agents to entrap and/or kill Tyndale. They succeeded, & the Crown was happy. Now, this sounds like a time & place I am glad to have missed living in; I like being an American, I disapprove of royalty in general, & ( true Celt that I am) British royalty in particular.
Tyndale’s Bible was part excuse, part politics (of the time) as usual. (The death penalty was common as crabgrass & nobody thought anything of it. Such were the times).
But to say that Tyndale was executed for “mistranslating the Bible” is simply not taking into account the political currents swirling around him. He was a supporter of ordinary people & a critic of both king & others in governmental power.
One king of England muttered “Who will rid me of this pestilent priest?”, & Thomas a Becket was murdered in the cathedral. Henry the 8th wanted Anne Boleyn, & the English church split from Rome…and a lot of people died, including Thomas More.
Kings did that kind of thing. They did it a lot. (Some more than others).
My point is not that we should execute people willy nilly; it is that, in the day, people were, in fact, killed for all manner of things, some serious, some frivolous. But, that was “jolly olde England”, from whose tender mercies, my own ancestors fled–some with a price on their heads.
This is not the fault of the church, Catholic, Anglican, or whatever. It was the fault of the system, which placed the king in a position of nigh-unto godlike power. Let’s put the blame where the blame lies–with the politicians…Some things, the more they
change…the more they stay the same…Except, back then, this was legal.
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
Why are you asking the Catholic faith to defend the actions of the Anglican Church? That would be the same as if someone were to ask YOU to defend the horrible actions of someone else.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
It had more to do with the prologue and footnotes.
According to Protestant historian Canon Dixon:
Likewise, in 1522 John Calvin burnt all the copies he could collect of Servetus’ Bible at Geneva, because these contained some notes he did not think were orthodox. (cf. ibid., 92)
It seems Tyndale’s rebellious propoganda imbedded in the prologue and footnotes of his “Bible” were suggestive of rebellion to the state as well. Thus, Tyndale’s version was denounced and opposed even more by the English Court and secular officials than by the clergy; and royal proclamations were issued against all who read or concealed the obnoxious volume. (cf. ibid. 92)
In the year 1531 King Henry VIII, with the advice of his Council and prelates published an edict that “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.” (ibid.,93)
Henry VIII ordered the public burning of Tyndale’s Bible, as well as others he deemed not an “authorized version.”
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Tyndale was burned at the stake in 1536 in Belgium at the instigation of agents of King Henry VIII. Why did the king of England do such a thing? I suppose he didn’t like the rebellious liturature of Tyndale and the effect it was having in his kingdom. It was likely Tyndale was killed for the very same reason Sir Thomas More was killed, for denouncing the divorce of King Henry VIII. Tyndale’s The Practice of Prelates (1530) was a most bitter polemic which condemned the divorce of Henry VIII, and drew the wrath of the king. Henry VIII had a habit of killing people that opposed him. Don’t be so naive as to think Henry VIII had Tyndale killed because of religion. It was about rebellion against his throne.
D
Digitonomy
Guest
Thanks for that tip on the Practice of Prelates, itsjustdave. Even putting aside that the Emperor Charles V was a crusading anti-protestant within his realm; this kind of publication tying a king to the anti-Christ seems like just the sort of thing to remove any doubts about cooperating with the English in executing an anti-monarchial hothead.
According to this historian, Tyndale
According to this historian, Tyndale
S
Sherlock
Guest
Sorry, but you’ve lost all credibility with me. You seem to want to “stick” the Church with a crime that she didn’t do, and now you simply want to give us the Criminal Code According To Stan, or, My Opinion Ought to Be Law. Newsflash: Stan OK with Topping Pederasts; Says No to Stake Burning of Pesky Translators by Anglican Church. Stop the presses!
Why don’t you go to the Church of England website, and pester them with questions? Why are you here asking Catholics to defend the actions of others?
D
DianJo
Guest
Sorry if I mischaracterized your efforts but…you have been told over and over that the Catholic Church did not keep the Word from the people and that the Catholic Church was not responsible for the burning at the stake of Mr. Tyndale but you persist in making or, rather, asking about the accustation. That sounds a little disingenuous to me.
Burning at the stake was as common in the Middle Ages as crucifixion was in Roman times. It was the punishment of the day carried out by the SECULAR courts. There was no separation of church and state back then - they were one and the same. If you were accused of being a heretic and found to be one in the courts, then you were going to be burned at the stake. Being a heretic meant you went against the king because the king was divinely appointed, therefore you were essentailly committing treason! An offense punishable by death! I’m sure Mr. Tyndale was given every opportunity to recant his heresies. In the end, he obviously didn’t recant and if you didn’t admit the error of your ways in teaching against Jesus - then, you were a heretic and you would receive the appropriate punishment.
Now, I agree that the punishment seems too strong for the crime but that’s a 21st century answer. You cannot put a 21st century spin on the daily life of the Dark and Middle Ages.
D
Digitonomy
Guest
While I agree stanley123’s obsession with Tyndale’s punishment has become tedious, I don’t think you can completely absolve the Catholic Church on this issue, and say it’s all the fault of the nasty Anglicans.
Tyndale’s translating and publishing effort was hounded out of Catholic England in the 1520s by a king who had been named fidei defensor by the pope. (Even after his excommunication by the pope in 1533, Henry petulantly considered himself a good Catholic, and defender of the faith - he just disagreed about who should be head of the Church in his country. Only later did the Church of England adopt additional heretical and schismatic views.) Once arrested in the Netherlands by agents of an anti-Protestant Emperor (from Spain), he was tried in the court of that Catholic realm. And as others have mentioned, there really wasn’t much separation of Church and State back then - a secular court wasn’t all that secular.
I think overall Zooey has done a very good job of explaining things.
R
runner554
Guest
Our parish priest told us his concern about us reading the bible on our own. There are at times confusing passages that can have multiple interpretations. I have noticed throughout this forum that people have a habit of using scripture, taken out of context, to promote their own idea of what is the truth.Our priest frequently exhorts us, as well, to read the bible. It’s not an unheard of concept, contrary to what my non-catholic friends may tell me.
Notworthy
S
Sherlock
Guest
I haven’t claimed that it’s all the fault of the Anglicans. I am merely tired of the lack of recognition on the part of Stan that the Catholic Church isn’t entirely responsible. And his transfer of 21st century ideas about capital crimes onto the Middle Ages has become very tedious indeed. C.S. Lewis had a wonderful term for this sort of hubris: “chronological snobbery”.
- Status