Yet Tyndale’s work was massively influential on even the Douay-Rheims bible and on the King James which has remained influential on subsequent Protestant and Catholic texts.
Despite accusation, to read the Bible in most Bibles today is to read a ghost of Tyndale’s translation.
I'm afraid this is itself a rather biased account of things. Much could be said, but for one thing it is simply not true that Tyndale met or corresponded with Martin Luther. This was simply a trumped up charge used by his enemies to sanctify his persecution and ultimate execution. Secondly, I must take issue with the distinction that is made between the secular and church authorities. In those days, the so-called secular authorities were all hand in glove with the church, and when the imperial authorities took hold of Tyndale they absolutely did so with the complicity of the Catholic church. Thirdly, on the question of heresy, I believe this to be an absolutely fatuous charge. People drew attention to how Tyndale created new words like atonement to better describe the meaning of original Hebrew and Greek words, as if this in itself were proof of dark intentions. But the truth is that he was simply a better, more original, translator than anyone of his day, and that the translation he produced went on to profoundly influence how the Bible was translated in all subsequent times. Whether we like it or not, we all owe him a tremendous debt of gratitude for his dedicated scholarship, and determination to bring the Bible to ordinary people in a language they could, and still do, understand. He certainly did not deserve to be shoved in a dungeon and executed like a criminal - and articles which suggest otherwise are deserving only of contempt.
So good and totally not what I was taught as a Protestant! I have much love and respect for Protestants but I’m happy to be on the road to Rome, starting OCI soon!
I agree with the commenter who said it would be good to include examples. Give at least one instance in which Tyndale messed with scripture such that he could be called heretical.
There is no so called " original scripture". I am sure that you are aware that all original texts were long gone by the 3rd century. And that the scriptures which were used for Church purposes were written in primitive Greek. All translations until recently were filled with errors, inconsistencies and outright forgeries. You probably know that the best example is how the old testament claimed that the Messiah would be born of a young women. The writer of Matthew, who ever he was mistakenly translated the verse into Greek to recite that the Messiah would be born of a virgin. From there it gets worse.And of course there is no scriptural support for Mary being born by immaculate conception. Or the Trinity. So unless a translation is faithful to the original Greek, which is functionally impossible, Catholics can fight with each other. And never get closer to the truth. Now long gone.
Just as well that there were so incredibly many copies of the original texts, thus allowing a very great degree of confidence as to what the original texts said.
That's the point there no original copies. Earliest texts date back to the 3rd century. No one knows what the first writings revealed. The argument over any known translations is a fools errand.
What you're saying is not actually logical. If there are thousands of early copies, and those copies very substantially agree with each other, then we can know with a great degree of confidence what the original texts actually said. This applies to all ancient texts, and it is well attested that the New Testament writings have more corroboration than any other texts of the era. Whether or not originals still exist is basically irrelevant. At best, it is merely a diversion from the substance of what they are about.
My understanding is that the earliest scriptures that survived. numbered about 40 to fifty. All written in primative Greek. Translations from there were written in Latin. Eventually English. With the King James being the most read. And it was translated by a number of writers each taking a few books here and there. It was rushed and the writers did not consult one another. Thus inconsistent translations withinthat version. The writers were reported to say that they were not inspired by the holly spirit in their work. My simple point is that there cannot be agreement on the correct translation. Dosen't mean there is no value in any of the various translations. Rather the fierce debate over the correct translations is a fools errand.
I agree there is no perfect translation, and that there there will always be disagreement on the meaning of certain things. The point is that compared to basically any other ancient text, or set of texts, we can have a pretty high degree of confidence about what was originally written down.
Classic example of gaslighting at play here. “He wasn’t executed for translating the Bible into English, he was executed for rejecting Catholic theology”
and that’s… somehow better?
It was the Catholic Inquisitor Jacob Latomus who declared him “not a true orthodox Catholic” and handed him over to the state on this basis to be executed. Any other version of the story is a coverup.
The Catholic Church had no problem with the translation into Spanish, Italian, German or other languages except English. Why did English take so long? The KJV was published around 1610, just 10 years later Pilgrims were seeking religious freedom in Plymouth, Massachusetts. There is more to this story than you have printed.
There is more. Part of it is linguistics, English wasn't the dominant language in England for a few centuries and it wasn't a literary one until the 14th. There wasn't exactly the same long build up of demand and translations as in others.
Nicholas Watson argued the 15th century English literature (including Biblical or theological material) was self-censorial to a degree in reaction to Arundel's Constitutions.
I'm not sure why Catholic Answers argues the so-called Wycliffite Bible was heretical, as we have many manuscripts and most were used by orthodox catholics throughout the 15th century. Which may be another part of the story, that 14th century translation was already fulfilling demand.
This is just a few recollections from when I researched this topic awhile ago.
Anti-Catholic narratives and history are pervasive and difficult to correct. Thank you for doing what you do for the Church and the faith.
I’m a Catholic and I’d like some links to the primary source referenced as well as the heretical translations.
Yet Tyndale’s work was massively influential on even the Douay-Rheims bible and on the King James which has remained influential on subsequent Protestant and Catholic texts.
Despite accusation, to read the Bible in most Bibles today is to read a ghost of Tyndale’s translation.
I'm afraid this is itself a rather biased account of things. Much could be said, but for one thing it is simply not true that Tyndale met or corresponded with Martin Luther. This was simply a trumped up charge used by his enemies to sanctify his persecution and ultimate execution. Secondly, I must take issue with the distinction that is made between the secular and church authorities. In those days, the so-called secular authorities were all hand in glove with the church, and when the imperial authorities took hold of Tyndale they absolutely did so with the complicity of the Catholic church. Thirdly, on the question of heresy, I believe this to be an absolutely fatuous charge. People drew attention to how Tyndale created new words like atonement to better describe the meaning of original Hebrew and Greek words, as if this in itself were proof of dark intentions. But the truth is that he was simply a better, more original, translator than anyone of his day, and that the translation he produced went on to profoundly influence how the Bible was translated in all subsequent times. Whether we like it or not, we all owe him a tremendous debt of gratitude for his dedicated scholarship, and determination to bring the Bible to ordinary people in a language they could, and still do, understand. He certainly did not deserve to be shoved in a dungeon and executed like a criminal - and articles which suggest otherwise are deserving only of contempt.
So good and totally not what I was taught as a Protestant! I have much love and respect for Protestants but I’m happy to be on the road to Rome, starting OCI soon!
I agree with the commenter who said it would be good to include examples. Give at least one instance in which Tyndale messed with scripture such that he could be called heretical.
The coherency across centuries indicates to me Divine involvement.
There is no so called " original scripture". I am sure that you are aware that all original texts were long gone by the 3rd century. And that the scriptures which were used for Church purposes were written in primitive Greek. All translations until recently were filled with errors, inconsistencies and outright forgeries. You probably know that the best example is how the old testament claimed that the Messiah would be born of a young women. The writer of Matthew, who ever he was mistakenly translated the verse into Greek to recite that the Messiah would be born of a virgin. From there it gets worse.And of course there is no scriptural support for Mary being born by immaculate conception. Or the Trinity. So unless a translation is faithful to the original Greek, which is functionally impossible, Catholics can fight with each other. And never get closer to the truth. Now long gone.
Just as well that there were so incredibly many copies of the original texts, thus allowing a very great degree of confidence as to what the original texts said.
That's the point there no original copies. Earliest texts date back to the 3rd century. No one knows what the first writings revealed. The argument over any known translations is a fools errand.
Or we can trust that God, via inspiration, could transmit his truth successfully
He has always kept a light on for the human race.
What you're saying is not actually logical. If there are thousands of early copies, and those copies very substantially agree with each other, then we can know with a great degree of confidence what the original texts actually said. This applies to all ancient texts, and it is well attested that the New Testament writings have more corroboration than any other texts of the era. Whether or not originals still exist is basically irrelevant. At best, it is merely a diversion from the substance of what they are about.
My understanding is that the earliest scriptures that survived. numbered about 40 to fifty. All written in primative Greek. Translations from there were written in Latin. Eventually English. With the King James being the most read. And it was translated by a number of writers each taking a few books here and there. It was rushed and the writers did not consult one another. Thus inconsistent translations withinthat version. The writers were reported to say that they were not inspired by the holly spirit in their work. My simple point is that there cannot be agreement on the correct translation. Dosen't mean there is no value in any of the various translations. Rather the fierce debate over the correct translations is a fools errand.
I agree there is no perfect translation, and that there there will always be disagreement on the meaning of certain things. The point is that compared to basically any other ancient text, or set of texts, we can have a pretty high degree of confidence about what was originally written down.
Classic example of gaslighting at play here. “He wasn’t executed for translating the Bible into English, he was executed for rejecting Catholic theology”
and that’s… somehow better?
It was the Catholic Inquisitor Jacob Latomus who declared him “not a true orthodox Catholic” and handed him over to the state on this basis to be executed. Any other version of the story is a coverup.
So, the Catholic church had a "Christian man" burnt to death for translating the Bible to English and it is okay because he was heretical?
FYI: Joan of Arc was burnt as a heretic!
I recommend this video for a rather more factual and rounded account of Tyndale's life and death: https://youtu.be/boHkVM5id7E?is=PRFXw3rZKIXqZOPN
The Catholic Church had no problem with the translation into Spanish, Italian, German or other languages except English. Why did English take so long? The KJV was published around 1610, just 10 years later Pilgrims were seeking religious freedom in Plymouth, Massachusetts. There is more to this story than you have printed.
There is more. Part of it is linguistics, English wasn't the dominant language in England for a few centuries and it wasn't a literary one until the 14th. There wasn't exactly the same long build up of demand and translations as in others.
Nicholas Watson argued the 15th century English literature (including Biblical or theological material) was self-censorial to a degree in reaction to Arundel's Constitutions.
I'm not sure why Catholic Answers argues the so-called Wycliffite Bible was heretical, as we have many manuscripts and most were used by orthodox catholics throughout the 15th century. Which may be another part of the story, that 14th century translation was already fulfilling demand.
This is just a few recollections from when I researched this topic awhile ago.