Talk:William Tyndale

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article includes content derived from the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, 1914, which is in the public domain.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the William Tyndale article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] see also

See also Brian Moynihan's God's Bestseller: William Tyndale, Thomas More, and the Writing of the English Bible---A Story of Martyrdom and Betrayal.

see also WP:SPAM Josh 19:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] French Article

Somebody should try integrating the French article... it seems more complete. Cazador 06:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baptist

In what sense? To User:66.227.176.154: Generally the earlist separatist Baptist is dated 1609. That's 17th century. Tyndale seems to have been ordained as a priest about 1521. Since the Act of Supremacy by Henry VIII was in 1534 does that make Tyndal nominally a Catholic in the beginning? Still, English divine comes to mind, but priest will do. - Athrash | Talk 06:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baptist???

Can someone provide a source to prove that William Tyndale was a Baptist?

I list the following quote from online article as evidence that Tyndale was a paedo-baptist:

From: A Brief Declaration of the Sacraments, by William Tyndale - "And God hath bound us christian men to receive this sign for our infirmities' sake, to be a witness between him and us, and also to put this sign upon our children"

article here: http://www.williamtyndale.com/0sacraments.htm

[edit] Tyndale the Lutheran

Tyndale was a contemporary of Luther and clearly reflects many of Luther's beliefs, primarily -- sola scriptura. However, a deeper look into his writings reveals a man who may have taken a new course and led an English reformation had he not been executed. The changes from his 1526 New Testament to his 1534 New Testament show how critical his growing knowledge of Hebrew was in translating Paul's Greek. Tyndale saw great importance in the concept of covenant with God and continually moved to a more independent stance away from Luther as his work continued. Tyndale was not a priest so much as he was linguist with the gift of theological clarity. The best work on Tyndale is David Daniell's biography of Tyndale. It is a fantastic work that emphasizes the shaping of Tyndale's framework for translation, the events unfolding in continental Europe at the time, and the methodology and critical beauty of Tyndale's work as translator.

Your addition to the intro, assuming "completely" means no doubt, now highlights a contradiction with paragraph 5 in Works as to the differing views of his source for translation, as if you didn't read the whole article and don't know how the discussion page works and if this unequivocal statement comes from Daniell, what page number? Maybe, you didn't read that either. One online review of Daniell by Tony Garland states:
Daniell spends considerable time examining the textual work of Tyndale in light of the sources available to him at the time: the Vulgate, the Septuagint, Luther's works, Erasmus' N.T., and others. He makes a convincing case that Tyndale was not overly dependent upon these other works, but like any good translator, made use of them where and when it made good sense.

- Athrash | Talk 00:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Reverted first part of intro, I find it strange in the second paragraph that the Douay-Rheims Bible is made to appear as a source of the KJV, when there is no mention of this in the main Wikipedia article KJV. Reference please.
OK, missed the passing reference under Wikipedia Douai Bible. - Athrash | Talk 23:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tyndale the Reformer

To User:70.171.63.100, who doesn't agree that divine in the intro refers to a religious leader in England, maybe "religious reformer" is suitable in a generic sense. The historian Will Durant describes Tyndale as anti-Catholic at Cambridge, no way the plowboy's friend will go down in history as priest. Disagree, show your colors. - Athrash | Talk 03:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enrollment at Wittenberg 1524

Have verified the entry. Dunnhaupt 17:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

through is misspelled as 'though' in the part about KJV scholars using his work...

  • So change it. That's the beauty of Wikipedia. I did it for you. --Phoenix Hacker 02:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep on hacking, but such a grammatical gaffe has no backing. That is the beauty of revert. - Athrash | Talk 05:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Don't Merge Article

I think that by merging it is creating confusion. I came here to see a Tyndale article, not The Tyndale society which seems to be just a book traders site. It would be like having Jesus soley on a Catholic page. Potters house 08:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd keep them separate, too. I would have said it was like including the Audobon Society under James Audobon - there's clearly a related interest, but one isn't really a descendent of the other.Lisamh 05:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Don't merge, remove banner, and change Miscellaneous section heading to Memorials. - Athrash | Talk 04:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

What's the big deal with merging them? It can be a little add-on at the very end of the article. It's not as if there's an entire set of paragraphs and topic to force into the original article.

DO MERGE: The Tyndale Society page does not really belong in an Encyclopaedia: it is little more than a commercial. It should be merged C.jeynes 01:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] merger

I feel merging this article would encroah upon the french aristocracy of the incan empire.
  • And about as likely as merging into a superhighway on a back road to Machu Picchu. - Athrash | Talk 05:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merging

It will be too confusing trust me

what is it all about

[edit] Some POV violations

I removed the following from the article:

Tyndale translated the term baptism into "washing;" Scripture into "writing;" Holy Ghost into "Holy Wind," Bishop into "Overseer," Priest into "Elder," Deacon into "Minister;" heresy into "choice;" martyr into "witness;" evangelist into "bearer of good news;" etc., etc. Many of his footnotes were vicious. For instance, Tyndale referred to the occupant of the Chair of Peter, as "that great idol, the whore of Babylon, the anti-Christ of Rome."::

It was a very POV passage from an obviously bitter Roman Catholic, obvious from the fact that he refers to the pope as the occupant of the chair of peter, which is an idea only shared by Roman Catholics and thus POV. Also, the passage is not entirely accurate as Tyndale DID use the words "scripture," "baptism," and "deacons" where it applies. I did leave in the bit about the small to no emphasis of ecclesiastical authority in Tyndale's translation that angered the Roman Catholic Church.

I also removed the following:

King Henry VIII in 1531 condemned the Tyndale Bible as a corruption of Scripture. In the words of King Henry's advisors: "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." Protestant Bishop Tunstall of London declared that there were upwards of 2,000 errors in Tyndale's Bible.1::

This passage makes it seem like Henry was more angry over Tynale's Bible translation then he was over Tyndale's critique of his divorce and remarriage (which was the king's real reason for demanding Tyndale's life.) --dimestore 04:51, December 16 2006

  • I, (the obviously bitter roman catholic), do not object to your changes. I knew my additions to the article would be revised. Thank you for doing so in a fairly objective way. That was my goal; to make this article on Tyndale objective. You have to admit it is lacking a bit in objectivity. Thank you for your revisions, however, and for trying to make this article objective. Not to mention my original additions were plagiarism, so i'm glad they were revised in manner which fixed that also. (Also i agree with that last bit about king henry.) --'that obviously bitter Roman Catholic' 66.191.128.106 20:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I have made some revisions, hopefully they do not come off as bitter. 66.191.128.106 21:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • p.s. I'm not Roman Catholic. 66.191.128.106 21:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the changes by dimestore. Why take Tyndale to task for making changes in the text and wording that is much more accurate. Most modern translations of the Greek Scriptures use "Elder" or "Overseer" in lieu of "Bishop" and some use "Minister" or "Servant" in lieu of "Deacon". Of course, modern translators had the advantage of working with Westcott and Hort's compiled Greek text and other compiled ancient texts which clearly show this was the intended meaning. Lending precedent to the idea that Tyndale was perhaps working with more than just the Vulgate.

I removed what appears to be a weasel word, "mercifully", since it is more than a little odd and glaring before "strangled". Infinitelink 21:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe this article violates Wikipedia's POV standards. Mostly due to the fact that several paragraphs from "Foxe's book of Martyrs" have been included. Which Wikipedia's own article on that book describes it as "anti-catholic propaganda" Perhaps a neutrality tag is in order?Kmerian 21:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

This kind-of reminds me of text-criticism when someone utilizes what is thought-of as a poor manuscript; the use isn't forbidden, disdained, or unwelcomed: it's just done carefully. The "Foxe's Book of Martyrs" /might/ be considered "propaganda"...but can only be considered such if it's truly innaccurate: it is, after all, no secret that the Roman Catholic Church committed mass murder, inquisition, etc...John Paul II was the first to officially announce apologies for its role in all that. Further, writings from those times are almost guaranteed to contain polemical writing, or theological viewpoints...and sometimes they're valid, other times it's substance-less vitriol: an appropriate example is of Sir Thomas Moore's attacks on Tyndale's NT: he claimed that it was aweful and a corruption...yet modern English Bibles are sometimes comprised of as much of 85% of Tyndale's work: Moore's attacks were based on the fact that he was assigned the duty of attacking the list of works delivered to him, not judging things on their merit.

And just because someone wrote that book is "anti-catholic propaganda" in Wikipedia doesn't mean it's true: a Pope actually issued apologies for mass-murder perpetrated by the organization he belonged to. So be cautious about materials cited, but not so quick to dismiss them.Infinitelink 11:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UMMMM

Someone needs to have a look at this site, particularly the opening paragaph. Its gone a bit... how shall I put it? ... wierd! ThePeg 23:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1484 or 1494?

The header has one birth year, and the biography section has another. Which is it? Badagnani 06:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

According to the ODNB, "Tyndale, William (c.1494–1536), translator of the Bible and religious reformer, was born in Gloucestershire, probably in one of the villages near Dursley (possibly Stinchcombe)." --HJMG 09:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is the TRUTH?

If anyone is able to change the articale than how do we know that this is real information? Is this comment page the only thing that keeps the articale acountable? How do we discern the here say form the Truth? All I want to know is where I can get real information! ChrisJohn --66.69.6.122 09:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

such is the eternal question of wikipedia. There is a resource that may be of help. It's called a book (don't feel bad; they've only been around for a few thousand years), and they are available for purchase in bookstores or online. Many communities and schools also have places called libraries where you can read a book from a large collection of them or even borrow one for free! I hope that was of help. Josh 19:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Text correction in Intro paragraph

I'm not confident enough to make the correction myself but will someone else who is confident look at the second par which says: "through the work of 54 independent scholars". I assume this should read "THOUGH the work of 54 independent scholars"

Golux 02:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Changed back to "though" again and a nice adverb could make it stick. - Athrash | Talk 04:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

I just marked this up with a lot of "Citation Needed" tags. Some may not be needed, but some def. are (like where the article states that Tyndale's capture was a "betrayal"). This is a pretty old article, and it seems that most of the original writers have come and gone, no? Can someone here point to where most of this material comes from? Also, I am OK with paraphrased citations from Foxe, but putting quotes from Foxe right in the article makes for clumsy formatting. Nosferatublue 15:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Errors and bias in Tyndale article; error in atonement article

This article has a strong Christian bias and has factual inaccuracies, e.g. an incorrect assertion that Tyndale coined the term "atonement." (In fact, he may have used it in a special sense, but the word was in existence earlier in related meanings and far earlier in more "literal" meanings). In addition, the interpretation of the Hebrew word kippur (as in Yom Kippur) is offensive. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur

Finally, can we agree to use a generic term, such as Hebrew Scriptures, in place of Old Testament, except where especially contrasted with New. While an article on Tyndale relates to Christian publications, the juxtaposition with Jewish terminology within the Hebrew Scriptures makes clear this is a discussion of Jewish texts (albeit in a Christian context).

Finally, finally, the page on atonement has a similar error of etymology. See

     http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50014218?query_type=word&queryword=atone&first=1&max_to_show=10&sort_type=alpha&search_id=GGuN-AyRxcx-4236&result_place=4

(requires university or similar authorization).

70.133.64.172 04:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Date Conflict

I don't want this to turn into a war, but the October date for his death is the only one I've been able to find in any book or online source other than that article sited that mentions the possibility of a September date. Of course that doesn't mean the October date is the real one, but it is the accepted one in every source I've seen.

SO...I've edited to article in what I believe to be a very generous and open-minded way, removing refs to the date of his death from the infobox and mentioning the September date as an alternative. I hope this will satisfy the "Septemberists" out there. Josh 16:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The question is really whether wikipedia should simply keep repeating things that are "accepted" but unlikely. Like the year of birth: a very putative 1494 was based on Foxe saying he was educated at Oxford "from a youth" (so, Victorian biographers postulate, this must mean he was much younger than people generally went to university; so perhaps born in 1494 ...). Now that his ordination records have been found it seems very likely he was born about half a decade earlier than that, so may have been a "young" student, but no younger than most. None of the reference works (even the Oxford DNB) reflect that yet. The same with date of death: no contemporary gives a date beyond a month. Foxe's Kalendar (not his biography of Tyndale) has Tyndale down for 6 October, but Foxe deliberately avoided having dates of commemoration coincide with dates of death (the way a Catholic martyrology would) so all we can conclude is that he didn't think Tyndale died on 6 October (but of course you have to read Foxe's small print, which isn't even reproduced in later editions, websites, etc.). Now the conclusions from the financial records for Tyndale's imprisonment have been published (again recently), but the "scientific" date is available one publication, and 10,000 google hits will find the "accepted" date instead - and looking at older, paper reference literature shows that Victorian and 20th-century biographers, like wikipedia editors, just go on repeating the "accepted" dates they find in general reference works, without even looking at them closely. --134.58.127.72 (talk) 23:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
No, that's not the question. What you are engaged in is original research, and that's not what wikipedia is for. This is an encyclopedia, not a scholarly journal. Neither is this page, let alone the article itself, a forum for debating issues like this. The standard reference books everywhere cite his date of death as October 6. But I have edited this date business in a generous manner, in order to leave the issue somewhat open. What you are doing is edging closer and closer to just plain vandalism. Work with me here, man. Josh (talk) 14:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Reproducing the findings of reliable and readily verifiable secondary literature that publishes original research is not, in itself, original research. The tertiary sources unanimously cite dates that the secondary sources have now shown are impossible to square with the primary sources. What's more, they do so on the authority of an author (John Foxe) who never actually asserted those dates himself. Surely you aren't suggesting that any widely reported fact that is unverifiable (and even impossible) at a primary level, and has been shown to be so at a secondary level, should at a tertiary level still be repeated as though verified simply because it has previously been so repeated at a tertiary level elsewhere? That, in fact, we should create on wikipedia the "reality of consensus" rather than verifiable reality? If I wanted to join in with the name-calling I'd call that a lack of common sense. --Paularblaster (talk) 15:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
David Daniell, in the Oxford DNB, has "a morning early in October (traditionally the 6th)". So you can see that even the tertiary sources are starting to step away from a bald statement of a non-fact. If you look at Foxe's kalender (the only 16th-century reference for the date 6 October) you will see that there is a second column after the name where Foxe recorded the date of death when he knew it (scroll down to Latimer and Ridley for an example); the number in front of the name is just the day of the month for commemoration (in chronological order by year of death, not date of death). Things that the British Academy publishes for anybody to read for free on the internet are hardly "original research". --Paularblaster (talk) 16:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
How exactly is citing something you have written yourself and put up on the internet yourself not original research? I don't know where you think I called you a name, nor do I know why you are taking this so personally, but your insulting tone is out of line. Aside from your citation of yourself, the article (or that paragraph anyway) as it now reads is fine. If you want to continue this discussion on my talk page feel free. Josh (talk) 19:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
First of all, I didn't cite myself: as near as I can make out JonHarder, someone unknown to me, cited me here first on 7 October. Secondly, even if I did cite myself, it would be in line with Wikipedia:NOR#Citing_oneself. Thirdly, you suggest that restoring JonHarder's edits to bring wikipedia into closer line with the latest secondary sources (2002) and tertiary sources (Oxford DNB, 2004) was tantamount to vandalism (pretty insulting to my good faith, my expertise, and your common sense). Fourthly, your latest edit completely misrepresents Foxe: if you consult the link in my previous message (above), you will see that Foxe precisely does not give 6 October as date of death (right hand column), only as date of commemoration (left hand column). He does give the month of October (as against Bale and Hall giving September). Your current edit suggests that Foxe says "6 October" and Paul Arblaster says "6 September": in fact Foxe says no more than "October", Bale and Hall both say "September", and I say: 6 September is the right number of days from the end of the fair in Bergen op Zoom that Pointz was absent at when Tyndale was arrested, which makes it the most probable date that can be established from the primary sources. I'm not married to the date 6 September, but I am determined not to father a date on Foxe that Foxe himself never made claims for. And I delight in the irony of the article on Tyndale being the site for this repudiation of ad fontes argumentation and the maintenance of invented traditions, so don't think I take it too personally ;o). --Paularblaster (talk) 20:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Just checking to see whether you'd responded and noticed that you not only suggest I cited myself, but cited something I "put up on the internet myself": in fact it was put up on the internet by the Tyndale Society, without my permission or consent, abbreviating and rephrasing (I know not how legally) an article originally published by Brepols (a reputable academic publisher) in Tyndale's Testament (2002, pp. 176-177). I was rather surprised to find it linked to here. --Paularblaster (talk) 10:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I didn't respond for a couple days to allow cooler heads to prevail. The way it looks right now is satisfactory to me. If you have any lingering personal issues with me, or wish to continue this discussion, please direct them to my talk page. Have a nice day.Josh (talk) 13:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation

Can I ask if anyone would object to removing the disambiguation redirection of the word 'Tyndale' to the article on that family: Tyndall? I appreciate that William Tyndale was the most eminent member of the family and the first individual people may think of when saying 'Tyndale'. However, it is a family name and, in its variant spellings, refers to a very large number of eminent members of the family, many of whom have entries on wikipedia. William Tyndale would then be given a disambiguation note at the top of the Tyndall family article, as he already is on the Tyndale (disambiguation) page. This would follow the practice with Leo Tolstoy. Tolstoy goes straight to the article on the Tolstoy family, but Leo is given a disambiguation note at the top of that article. Francis Hoar (talk)Francis HoarFrancis Hoar (talk)