Talk:William Tyndale

Statistics

The article states " One estimate suggests that the New Testament in the King James Version is 83% Tyndale's and the Old Testament 76%." I can't see how this can be true for the Old Testament. He published the Penteteuch and Jonah and some liturgical passages and completed some other books. But did he even finish 76% of the Old Testament? If not so it seem statistically improbably that 76% of the King James OT is from Tyndale. ChilternGiant (talk)

Some remarkably similar numbers occur in the section William Tyndale#Impact on the English Bible, but with a much more believeable explanation, including the qualification "of the books he translated". I do not have access to the source for the assertions made in the lead section, but they seem unsustainable, for the reasons you point out. William Avery (talk) 11:27, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

It would be good to know what methodology was used, otherwise we need to put some caveat in the text. I expect they just looked at Modern English and didn't check for earlier.

Lets take an example at random: Rom 8:1

(Paues MidEng) no þing of dampnacyon to þese þat beþ in Iesu Crist, þat walkeþ noȝt after þe flesche.

(Wycliffe EV MidEng)Therfore now no þing of dampnacioun is to hem þat ben in Criſt Jheſu, þe whiche wandren not aftir þe fleiſch.

(Wycliffe LV MidEng)Therfor now no thing of dampnacioun is to hem that ben in Crist Jhesu, whiche wandren not after the flesch.

(Luther 1522/1530 German) So ist nu nichts verdammlich an denen, die ynn Christo Jesu sind, die nicht nach dem fleysch wandeln,

(Tyndale) There is then no damnation to them which are in Christ Iesu, which walk not after the flesh:

(Coverdale 1535) Then is there now no damnacion vnto the that are in Christ Iesu, which walke not after the flesh,

(Douey 1582) There is now therfore no damnation to them that are in Christ Iesvs; that walke not according to the flesh.

(Geneva 1560/1599) He concludeth that there is no condemnation to them, who are grafted in Christ

(KJV 1611) There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh,

We can see that in this case Tyndale's looks like just a straightforward translation into Early Modern English of Luther, using the vocabulary and connectors of the Middle English (particularly the Paues): actually, we don't know that Tyndale, here, was not just giving the bog-standard ad hoc translation that preachers in England used at that time.

And we can see that maybe the KJV "condemnation" comes from Geneva (which in turn gets it from Erasmus' Latin condemnatio rather than the Vulgate's damnatio, but supposedly there is a Wycliffe EV that uses it and it has a longer history of use...); "therefore","flesh","walk" comes from various Middle English, "There is therefore now no ... to" is not found exactly anywhere but almost the same in many variants".

Anyway, this is a long-winded way of saying that these counts "how much is Tyndale" are utterly bogus because it depends on what your granularity and history is, and how far you track back into related languages: sure there are some verses that Tyndale will do something original, but not 83% of the time... Rick Jelliffe (talk) 04:56, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

French Article

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

The french article is not good sourced. The Tyndales letter from the prision Vilvoorde, is interesting but not very important for this article. This letter is to find in most books about Tyndale. But possibly, I will see and place a sentence and a footnote to this topic on the article. But, in the moment Idon't have the books about Tyndale in the near. The rest of the france article is not important, today.

Now this section-question is answered! --Soenke Rahn (talk) 14:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

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

=> This was a Message from an unknown user

From the named text: "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" Baptising children is not baptism. "even so they that be baptized in the flesh, and not in heart, have no part in Christ’s blood. And as the circumcised in the heart, and not in the flesh, had part in God’s good promises; even so a Turk unbaptized (because he either knoweth not, that he ought to have it, or cannot for tyranny,) if he believe in Christ, and love as Christ did and taught, then hath he his part in Christ’s blood." This is usage of the alone by faith, you can find such citate in Luthers text. If it should be important I can place it here. Result: this text is not a text of baptist - For the question look too on the following discussion. --Soenke Rahn (talk) 13:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

He was never ordained. FrancisDane (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

In this question ordination is not important. --Soenke Rahn (talk) 15:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

It will be too confusing trust me what is it all about => This was a Message from Unknown User

The problem is cleared, since a long time. --Soenke Rahn (talk) 13:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

To comment on an old thread: yes, strangulation was regarded as a mercy, compared to being burned alive. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 16:10, 15 March 2024 (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)

re: "that book" [Foxe's Book of Martyrs] not being anti-catholic propaganda, utterly false. It is in fact propaganda that contains a anti-catholic view and is propaganda because it utilizes Catholic saints in the early passages as if they aren't members of that community. Further, your false representation of papal comments does not further your claims of misrepresentation as it is you who are being misleading Infinitelink. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.184.3 (talk) 17:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

To comment on an old thread: modern historians tend to see Foxe's Acts and Monuments as both highly partisan *and* a good source of objective information: from what I have read, partisan because the aim of the book was partisan, and the spin he gives is partisan, and he takes every opportunity to believe the worst; however he does also diligently preserve a lot of information as evidence which otherwise is lost. So where there is some document he actually reproduces, that is probably reliable; where he is commenting or giving hearsay, that probably needs to be treated with caution and alternative balancing info needs to be found to get the NPOV. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 02:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

On the idea that More as wrong because 85% of modern versions are based on Tyndale: 85% is bogus (see first item in this Talk page), "based on" is historically un-nuanced (More's comments were mainly about problems in the first versions of the NT: Tyndale revised and even took up some of More's suggestions), and I think the argument is a non-sequitur (since when does adoption prove truth? or, if adoption does prove truth, can't the Catholics point out their numerical superiority?) Rick Jelliffe (talk) 13:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

UMMMM - Opening paragaph

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)

1484 or 1494 born?

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)

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)

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)

"Citation Needed" tags

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)

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).

Why shouldn't there be Christian bias? He was a Christian. Do you want a Jewish perspective of Wm Tyndale? If there are factual inaccuracies, they should be corrected. 75.192.242.122 (talk) 11:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

70.133.64.172 04:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Coinage of the word 'atonement' is often ascribed to Tyndale, but the word was around in at least 1513, before Tyndale's translation: see OED entry here (also see entry on atone in an Online Etymological Dictionary and the info provided in this blog entry, More on "Atonement": Before Tyndale). --Woofboy (talk) 14:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and If I look on the section above "Impact on the English language" I can say that e.g. "lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil" it looks very similar like Luthers "und führe uns nicht in Versuchung sondern erlöse uns von dem Übel", but thanks for you mistake correction. (o: Good work. --Soenke Rahn (talk) 21:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The article doesn't have a Christian bias; it has a Christian context. If you write about a service vehicle in Britain, you call it a lorry, not a truck; if you write about the section of the Bible originally written in Hebrew and Aramaic in a Christian context, you call it the Old Testament. (That's what Tyndale himself called it, and what every Christian Bible that I know of calls it.) "Hebrew Scriptures" is appropriate in a joint Judeo-Christian context, or when discussing secular interaction (archeological finds that intersect with the texts, or scholarly textual study). ElrondPA (talk) 01:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Date Conflict: Date for Tyndales death

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)

Per the Moynihan book cited below, he was executed in Oct. 1536 "probably before noon on 6 October", p. 377. FrancisDane (talk) 11:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

The problem is cleared, since a long time. --Soenke Rahn (talk) 13:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Priesthood in 1515/21

According to the German Biographisch-Bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon Tyndale was ordained not until 1521. For those who read German: BBKL: s.v. Tyndale. But as this source is available in German only, it may not be aedequate for citation on en.wikipedia. Even so a correction may be indicated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.70.102.131 (talk) 15:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, in the german wikipedia we citate english texts, too. A lot of users in the english wikipedia, placed on there Wikipedia-Site that they can speak german. (What should be the reason for this practise? What do you think?) In classical encyclopedias you will find here and there citations of foreign books. It is clear that sometimes it is the only way to make a good wikipedia-article. Tyndale was a long time in germany. Don't forget that it is normal practise that a lot of articles are translated from one language to another. German is not an exotic language. When you can't german you can use the babelfish for a bad translation or you can ask a lot of other Users which can speak German. ... use the horse-sense (-: --Soenke Rahn (talk) 13:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

But in this case I will see that I will find an english citate. I suppose this would be not the problem. --Soenke Rahn (talk) 13:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Although Tyndale was ritually stripped of his priestly accoutrements before his execution, I can find no reference to his being ordained anywhere. He never had a formal parish in England. When he graduated from Oxford, he bacame a tutor. FrancisDane (talk) 11:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I suppose that a ordination is possible without to get a parish, today and in history. The problem is that there are big leaks in his curriculum vitae. ... So your statement "Tyndale was ritually stripped of his priestly accoutrements before his execution" can give an answer. But I will look in my books, too. Interesting question. with friendly greetings Sönke --Soenke Rahn (talk) 15:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Attitude of Roman Catholic Church

If you read the article ohbibi HHHHHHHHIIIIII woeid talk:81.193.220.222|talk]]) 18:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thomas More only ordered the execution of 6 Protestants while he was Chancellor. He said that he never used torture and gave them the chance to return to the Catholic Church. We can't also forget that to be a Protestant was then a crime of heresy.81.193.222.128 (talk) 17:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Where did More say he never used torture? This isefweGFQERQTEA34EGRFgood faith", etc.81.193.189.85 (talk) 23:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, IP203, if it is a lie that he never used torture, then perhaps you can find a WP:RS for it on the Thomas More article, but there's no point in talking about it here. This talk page is for article improvement only. And fyi, 1) their crime could not have been only wanting to read it in their language because it already existed in their language and 2) if Thomas More really was a rotten guy, the Church can simply "de-saint" him, as has been done to others in the past, hence they have no need to try to "prove he justified that status."Farsight001 (talk) 06:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I have read two books about More's obsession with Tyndale and other protestants. See "God's Bestseller: William Tyndale, Thomas More and the Writing of the English Bible-A Story of Martyrdom and Betrayal", by Brian Moynihan (St. Martin's Press, 2002). Moynihan cites ample evidence that More took alleged protestants to his house in Chelsea and tortured them. He even had a special wall erected in his house with manacles attached. This started when he was still Chancellor and continued after he turned in his seal to Henry VIII. He seems to have had a particular obsession with Wm. Tyndale and the author regards More as the "chief instigator" of Tyndale's persecution. I believe there should be some mention of More and his role in Tyndale's exile and ultimate execution in this article. FrancisDane (talk) 11:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Brian Moynahan isn´t a reliable source. He is not even a historian. John Foxe who supported the execution of Catholics during Elizabeth I by hanging, drawing and quartering and their torture, was one of the first to promote these rumours about Thomas More having tortured people. More always denied it. He approved the burning of heretics, but so did Erasmus, John Calvin and many Protestants. Even Nicholas Ridley officiated at the execution of a Catholic by being burned at the stake. If John Foxe saw the Catholic Church as the "Antichrist" and fully supported the persecution, torture and execution of Catholics during Elizabeth I reign, he doesn´t have any moral level to accuse anyone of a practise that he fully supported. We already debated the reliability of John Foxe and those who follow him, like Brian Moynahan a mediocre and highly biased author in the Thomas More Talk Page. Those who investigate these controversies of the past should try to take in consideration the historical context and not to believe in everything that his written in the most unreliable sources.85.243.91.86 (talk) 15:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I looked on a book of Bryan Moynahan, seems to be that he studied history. I will see about his curiculum vitae. On the other hand, a sentence like "If John Foxe saw the Catholic Church as the "Antichrist" ..." shows that the IP is somebody, isn't a historian, and a person which is not reading historical sources in historical critical way. Sorry any historian is writing about William Tyndale is using John Fox. And tomorrwo somebody is saying that William Tyndale never exists. And after this the catholic is saying that the reformation never was. I suppose that these POV-Dicussions are concludent and not serious. with friendly greetings, Sönke Rahn —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soenke Rahn (talk • contribs) 12:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC) --Soenke Rahn (talk) 12:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Please, with all respect, improve your english. It's not often easy to understand what you mean. Brian Moynahan is an amateur historian. You can read about his entry on Wikipedia. If any historian writting about Tyndale needs to read John Foxe "Book of Martyrs", he also should know about his anti-Catholicism bias. About the controversies regarding Thomas More and the allegations some make about him, please read the article about him and his Talk:Thomas More. We aren't anymore in the 16th century and we can admire nowadays people who stood in opposite sides of the Reformation.81.193.220.206 (talk) 23:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I looked on the book again. I took it from my bookshelf and now I am sitting on the Computer in the University. Anybody, which owns this book, can read: "... was a history scholar of Cambridge University. (Compare Cover of: Brian Moynahn: God's Bestseller. New York 2003). Sorry your argumentation is more than wrong and your unscientifical argumentation is not to understand. ... with friendly greetings, Sönke Rahn --Soenke Rahn (talk) 10:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

On the claim that More executed 6 people, this seems to be quite legally confused. As I understand it More was, as Lord Chancellor, head of a kind of Appeals Court with the King's main advisors: it could not impose the death penalty: it could only affirm that the original trial had been handled according to the law or, if it hadn't, commute or overturn the capital verdict. By the time the appeal got anywhere near More's court the sentence had already been given. The article on More has more info. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 13:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

And on the claim that More tortured, More himself explicitly denied he had tortured in a book he wrote before his death. Under the law of the time, torture could only be used (in some pre-trial interrogations, under laws designed for seditious heresy) when the suspect was pretty-much known to be lying: NOT when they were rashly telling the truth. So the torture claim makes little sense: the problem with the Lutherans was often not that they needed to be forced by torture to acknowledge they were Lutherans, the problem was that they loudly volunteered it: contrast with More's discretion in his year in the Tower, until he was betrayed. (The source of the claims of torture was a particular Protestant, John Constantine, who ratted out other Protestants and needed to justify why he had done it, IIRC.) Rick Jelliffe (talk) 13:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

On Foxe, from what I can make out, his preservation of old documents (laws etc) (the "Acts" of "Acts and Monuments") is regarded by historians as very reliable preservation of primary material. However, his authored descriptions are regarded as frequently propagandistic and prone to lurid interpretation, and so presumably not suitable for simply quoting as if a WP:RS. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 13:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

The souper of the Lorde

I have removed The souper of the Lorde from the list of Tyndale's works. This anonymously published treatise used to be accredited to Tyndale (based on John Foxe's collection of Tyndale's work), but this ascription is not held any longer. It has been shown that the author is George Joye. See:

• William A. CLEBSCH, More Evidence That George Joye Wrote ‘The Souper of the Lorde’, in HTR 55 (1962), pp. 63-66.
• Orlaith O’SULLIVAN, The Authorship of The Supper of the Lord, in Reformation 2 (1997), pp. 207-232.

GJ1535 (talk) 18:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Article incorrectly attributes the term "Jehovah" to the vowels of "Adonai"

It is amazing that this ERROR is repeated so often and by such reputable authorities. It is has been demonstrated time and again that the the vowels of Adonai DO NOT correpond to those of Jehovah, which would render it "Yahovah" instead of "Y'hovah". In the Masoretic text, it is usually the second vowel, "O", which is blotted out so that the reader will not prononce it. Hence, יְהוָה , which correponds to Y'h*vah, making Adonai an even more improbable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 23:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Tyndale is said to have influenced the English language. We know a great deal about what he wrote but hardly anything about what he said. However there is, I believe, a record of his dying words. (Perhaps someone can supply a reference.) He is said to have said: "May the King of England's mind be changed." This is interesting grammatically, not do much for the subjunctive with auxiliary, which you also find in the Authorised Version of the Bible, (e.g. "May the Lord bless you and keep you.." etc.) as for the use of an s sound, (written above with apostrophe) as a post-position. "England's" is not the genitive case of England. "King of England's" is a sort of genitive of "King of England". It is at this point in the development of our language that we see the "case" model of nouns, developed for Latin and Greek, which still works for German, for instance, and Russian, breaking down in English. I do not know an earlier use of this construction. If anybody does I'll shut up. Otherwise I think Tyndale's last spoken words should be included in his biography. Bukovets (talk) 23:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Foxe reports Tyndale's last words as "Lord, open the King of England's eyes." --Paularblaster (talk) 14:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not reliably attested by contemporary sources, as I understand it. It is likely mythologizing, like the ploughboy story.Rick Jelliffe (talk) 13:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

His Denomination

The article doesn't openly states what was his Protestant denomination. I think most evidence indicates that he was a Lutheran.82.154.80.194 (talk) 18:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I would say it like you especially, because I looked in his texts and in Luthers texts. I would say he was an independent Lutheran. His independence is to see in his text The Obedience of a Christian Man. Tyndale made an english variant of Luthers text: The Freedom of a Christian, but he used another sentence of Luthers text for the title, because Tyndale learned from the peasant uprisings. Beside his Bible translation, where you can see the influence of Martin Luther, without problems, this is his most known book. And I mean it would be not false to translate this book into german. (-: I suppose that this is one good example for Luthers influence on Tyndale and Tyndales independent. But a lot of people don't like it to read that Tyndale was a Lutheran. Because, they are eg baptists and want not to baptise children and so on or they are from another protestant group. So I will not have the fun to make an edit war. with friendly greetings, Sönke --Soenke Rahn (talk) 12:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the most easy way to define him is as an independent Protestant. Henry VIII always opposed his Lutheran inspired views and continued the persecution of Lutherans after spliting from Rome, in 1534, until is death, in 1547.Mistico (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Henry VIII is one thing, Tyndale is another. Tyndale was surely independent from London. If you would look in Tyndales texts you will see a lot of relations to Luther and so on. --Soenke Rahn (talk) 18:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I suspect the issue of "denomination" is anachronistic wrt the 1520s and 1530s. There is an interesting 1962 article Trinterud, L. J. (1962). "A Reappraisal of William Tyndale's Debt to Martin Luther". Church History. 31 (1): 24–45. doi:10.2307/3163358. ISSN 0009-6407. which says that Tyndale used Luther rather than followed him, and had more of an influence of Zwingli and Erasmus. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 13:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Cleanup and Expert Needed

The article states: "Around 1529, it is possible that Tyndale went into hiding in Hamburg, carrying on his work. He revised his New Testament and began translating the Old Testament and writing various treatises. In 1530, he wrote The Practyse of Prelates, opposing Henry VIII's divorce on the grounds that it was unscriptural and was a plot by Cardinal Wolsey to get Henry entangled in the papal courts. The king's wrath was aimed at Tyndale: Henry asked the emperor Charles V to have the writer apprehended and returned to England. Tyndale made his case in An Answer unto Sir Thomas More's Dialogue. In 1532 Thomas More published a six volume Confutation of Tyndale's Answer, in which he alleged Tyndale was a traitor and a heretic.[17] Moynahan writes that More "despised, feared and loathed Tyndale; he, and his English Testament, were the obsessions of More's life. His hatred was not slaked by the savaging he had given Tyndale in his Dialogue, nor by the half a million words he had poured into the Confutation, this was mere flood of ink, where More was satisfied only by blood and the flames of the 'shorte fyre." Monynahan makes the case that More was a powerful factor in the betrayal and death of Tyndale.[18]"

This seems quite a mess. The article needs an expert to clarify more exactly the controversies in which Tyndale was involved in his final years. In fact, he and More agreed in their opposition about the king's divorce. More wrote two treatises aimed mostly at Tyndale, the second was quite large, but I don't think the best way to deal with the controversy it's to add a rather demagogical and inflamatory quote by an amateur investigator, who claims that despite More had been dead for a year, had some role in the "betrayal" and execution of Tyndale.213.13.242.180 (talk) 18:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It is possible to enlarge the article in this section. In the moment I suppose some facts are more important. I will see, in the moment I make a presentation about Luther (Tyndale included) for University, so I am on this topic but I am busy too. So I will see that, if I have time again, that I will enlarge missing gaps. --Soenke Rahn (talk) 11:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

We already debated in Talk:Thomas More if Brian Moynahan amateuristic book was a reliable source and we concluded that it wasn't, because this work too biased and tendencious to be seen as a reliable source since it exagerates too much the role More had in Tyndale condemnation and isn't a work of a serious historian, because it gives credit to the claims that More used torture while most serious historians disagree with that, believing it was an invention of his enemies, like John Foxe. I'm not trying to take sides in the More and Tyndale controversy, but there are authors that exagerate More role in his execution, trying instead to minimize the role that Henry VIII had in it. To keep Brian Moynahan quote is against Wikipedia policies of NPOV, since it's pure demagogical exercice and they were added by a now suspended user UP203. I would like to replace Moynahan quotes by others from more reliable, serious sources. Mistico (talk) 21:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I would say that a POV in this case is very big argument, but I see not a POV. Possbile there is a mistake in the article. A POV is a statements because of political reasons. Here is no POV to see. On the other hand it is not important for this article if a discussion in a another article concluded that a book is not good for this article. I have the book, the book is usable. In the past I don't useed the book for the article. Possible there is an error in the article in this question, but the book in general is Ok. John Foxe is a source quoted of all historians which will report over William Tyndale. So I have not the time, in the moment. It is to see that Brian Moynahan had written it. This is very neutral expression.

Now some words to the question. The execution was made by help of the catholic church. Henry was King of England and not of the Netherlands. It could be that he had his hands in the betrayal of William Tyndale. But no historian is sure. Clear is only that the catholic church or theology was an important factor for the execution.

But I would say that this passage in the article is not so important so I place it into a footnote.

Please, if somebody means that a section is not OK don't place a big POV on the artilce. This is to much. (-: --Soenke Rahn (talk) 10:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

--Soenke Rahn (talk) 10:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Like you can see by the article about him, Brian Moynahan isn't a historian and his books aren't enough scientific. I'm sure there are more reliable sources that can be used for Tyndale.Mistico (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Brian Moynahan

There has been a lot of discussion on this page, in various sections, about the relative merits of Brian Moynahan and his contentious book. Given this has direct and sizeable implications for the main historical narrative the article presents, it seems we should reach a decision about his work and stick with it.. We could vote and note the conclusion for future editors so we don't keep covering the same ground. We could add a line to the article stating that Moynahan takes a different tack. Ref the discussion of Moynahan at Talk:Thomas More. I don't think barking that Moynahan is a jumped up, up-start non-historian help matters. I'm sure most of us would want to rely on the most solid sources and ref the rest. Best wishes Spanglej (talk) 08:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Brian Moynahan gives credit to the rumours that Protestant authors of the 16th century spread that Thomas More often use torture to achieve recantations. This is what is in the Thomas More article about this controversy:

"Rumours circulated both during More's lifetime and posthumously regarding the treatment of heretics during his time as Lord Chancellor. The popular anti-Catholic polemicist John Foxe, who "placed Protestant sufferings against the background of ... the Antichrist"[36] was instrumental in spreading rumours of torture in his famous Book of Martyrs, claiming that More had often personally used violence or torture while interrogating heretics: more current Protestant authors, such as the amateur historians Brian Moynahan and Michael Farris, continue to cite Foxe as a source when repeating these allegations in their own respective works.[37] More himself, however, took pains to refute these charges, as recounted by British historian Peter Ackroyd in his biography The Life of Thomas More:

“ Stories of a similar nature were current even in More's lifetime and he denied them forcefully. He admitted that he did imprison heretics in his house — 'theyr sure kepynge' — he called it - but he utterly rejected claims of torture and whipping.[38] ”

As Ackroyd surmises, since More rejected the rumoured reports of torture as false, 'so helpe me God': "He was not a man falsely to invoke the deity and it can be believed that the heretics whom he detained and interrogated suffered 'neur . . . so mych as a fylyppe on the forhed.'" [39] Ackroyd, however, notes that More "approved of Burning"[40] For example, after the case of John Tewkesbury, the London leather-seller found guilty by More of harboring banned books and who was sentenced to be burnt to death at the stake for refusing to recant, More declared: he "burned as there was neuer wretche I wene better worthy."[41] In total, there were six heretics burned at the stake during More's Chancellorship: Thomas Hitton, Thomas Bilney, Richard Bayfield, John Tewkesbery, Thomas Dusgate, and James Bainham.[42] Burning at the stake was the acceptable punishment for unrepentant heretics at the time, even for more moderate people like Erasmus and many Protestants — about thirty burnings had taken place in the century leading to More's elevation to Lord Chancellor.[43]

I hope this clarify the question. Anyway, Thomas More was in jail for 14 months, from 1534 to 1535, and was already dead when William Tyndale was executed. It's interesting to compare from a modern perspective Thomas More and William Tyndale lifes and controversies. C. S. Lewis, an Anglican, states: "What we miss in Tyndale is the many-sidedness, the elbow-room of More's mind; what we miss in More is the joyous, lyric quality of Tyndale. The sentences that stick to the mind from Tyndale's work are half way to poetry--"Who taught the eagles to spy out their prey? even so the children of God spy out their Father." -- "that they might see Love and love again" -- "where the Spirit is, there it is always summer" (though that last, we must confess, is borrowed from Luther). In More we feel all the "smoke and stir" of London; the very plodding of his sentences is like horse traffic in the streets. In Tyndale we breathe mountain air. Amid all More's jokes I feel a melancholy in the background; amid all Tyndale's severitites there is something like laughter, that laughter which he speaks of as coming "from the low bottom of the heart." But they should not be set up as rivals, their wars are over. Any sensible man will want both: they almost represent the two poles between which, here in England, the human mind exists -- complementary as Johnson and Shelley or as Cobbett and Blake."[1]81.193.220.206 (talk) 01:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I looked on the book again. I took it from my bookshelf and now I am sitting on the Computer in the University. Anybody, which owns this book, can read: "... was a history scholar of Cambridge University. (Compare Cover of: Brian Moynahn: God's Bestseller. New York 2003). Sorry your argumentation is more than wrong and your unscientifical argumentation is not to understand. ... with friendly greetings, Sönke Rahn --Soenke Rahn (talk) 10:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

By the way - the different IP's which comming, and argumented her to kick Brian Moynahan away from this site, comming from the same country, surely frome the same User. I suppose it is one User which will kick him away in this kind it could be a vandalism. In the moment I have not the time discuss about false things. (By the way my computer makes permanent errors, writing down my signature. Possibly the browser?) with friendly greetings Sönke Rahn --Soenke Rahn (talk) 10:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Another Problem is that you will find in each book Errors, that's Science. Oh, I found Errors in David Daniell's books. If we will kick all books away, which book should we take? with friendly greetins, Sönke Rahn --Soenke Rahn (talk) 18:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but your english is laughable. If someone should be not allowed to comment in here it´s you, because you don´t even speak an acceptable english.85.243.68.105 (talk) 18:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

These are Wikipedia policies of verifiability: "Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints. The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral; in particular, section headings should reflect areas important to the subject's notability. Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Look out for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.".[2] Brian Moynahan, such a neutral and serious historian writes that Thomas More "despised, feared and loathed Tyndale; he, and his English Testament, were the obsessions of More's life. His hatred was not slaked by the savaging he had given Tyndale in his Dialogue, nor by the half a million words he had poured into the Confutation, this was mere flood of ink, where More was satisfied only by blood and the flames of the 'shorte fyre." Monynahan makes the case that More was a powerful factor in the betrayal and death of Tyndale." For those who know the book, may we ask, in what sense Brian Moynahan argues that Thomas More was a factor in the execution of William Tyndale? Obviously there is a tendency from some Protestants to forgive Henry VIII for his persecution of Protestants and blame other people, even deceased when Tyndale was executed.85.243.68.105 (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, you are argumenting completly false. Sentences like "More is a saint because he was martyred for the faith." are saying a lot. And Sentences like "Obviously there is a tendency from some Protestants to forgive Henry VIII for his persecution of Protestants and blame other people ..." saying more. You are extremly catholic. More catholic than the pope. (You will have a POV in the sense of an extremly old catholic theology.) This is open to see. William Tyndales storry is not a protestant Sack of Rome (1527) and I don't like people which will construct the history in such ways. Your Statements are strange theories without reliable, published source. It's nothing more. By the way More was also a ghostwriter for Henry ... . Tyndales Death was a result of a catholic argumentation. Look on the Council of Constance since this time it was open to see that the old catholic church didn't like a translations of the Bible, especially in english. ... Please don't nerve this page by repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat ... your strange statement, which are open to see completly false. with friendly greetings, Sönke Rahn --Soenke Rahn (talk) 11:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't wrote that Thomas More was a saint because of his martyrdom, it was another user. I am not extremely Catholic at all. John Foxe, Bryan Moynahan, Michael Farris all have tendency to minimize, in a way or another, Henry VIII persecution of Catholics. There are many books published about the Reformation and I hope the article will attract more people with their knowledge to improve it. Your english is amazing and if I knew german as well as you know english, I would not even try to add anything to the German Wikipedia. This is a user who writes sentences like this one: "This is open to see. William Tyndales storry is not a protestant Sack of Rome (1527) and I don't like people which will construct the history in such ways." It was rumoured that Thomas More wrote his "Asssertio Septem Sacramentorum", but this his unlikely. I can't debate with people with such childish and minimal knowledge of the english language. I studied History and the Reformation at the University, I have a general knowledge of the first times of Protestantism, but I am by no means an expert, so I hope better users will improve the article about William Tyndale. I am not biased in any way about Protestantism, in fact, I already added information in several articles about famous Protestants. I am from a Catholic background but I don't follow that faith anymore.Mistico (talk) 14:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you thing that a person from Germany, will not know a lot about the Reformation in general. Do you thing that a person from Portugal will be an expert in such questions? I can read in the texts of Martin Luther. And William Tyndale was a long time in Germany. A lot of his texts owns references to Martin Luthers texts. (Tyndale wrote not a lot in Latin, but More I know. (-:) If you thing that people will decrease Henry's roll in this question. Do you thing that it would be possible for a historian to write that Henry was innocent (in this question)? He was the king and so he was responsible for some components. (He was not Frederick III, Elector of Saxony.) Anybody knows it. No historian will deny it. Each historian will give another view. So that you will get an overall view, because there was more than one culprit. There is no problem in this question in the article. It is not a custom to write under a IP, if you own a Login. I know that my english is not a shakespeare english. But, this is not important. English speaking Users will understand me. A problem for none native english speaker is, that they will use structures from there own language in english. A Romanic one will use Romanic structures + words and will say: When will the performance commence. A person from Germany will say: When will the show begin. But it is clear to see that this is not the problem with your talk contributions. --Soenke Rahn (talk) 15:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure this bickering Helps the article much Spanglej (talk) 17:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but your original suggestion, "We could add a line to the article stating that Moynahan takes a different tack." sounds reasonable. Harrycroswell (talk) 14:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Translations of Tyndales Works into other Languages?

Hi, is something of his works translated into other Languages, e.g. Latin, Dutch, German, Spanish, French etc. I suppose it would be an interesting and relevant question. And I think the answer should be implemented into the article. Please make a statement on the talk page also when you don't find anything in a foreign language after an intensive searching. (Alternative, when the statement would be to long, please, place it on my German Talk Page.) Especially a translation of his work The Obedience of a Chistian Man would be interesting, I think. with friendly greetings, Sönke Rahn --Soenke Rahn (talk) 12:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The Obedience of a Chistian Man = The Obedience of a Christian Man.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 10:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. (-: with friendly greetings --Soenke Rahn (talk) 12:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Disputed line

Contention from Roman Cathoics came not only from real or perceived errors in translatin but a fear of the erosion of their social power of if Christians could read the Bible in their own language.

This is a gloss and, I contend, untrue, instead being a reflection of a common myth taught in England for centuries. The Church in fact had no problem at all with vernacular Bibles - Wycliffe's and others had been circulating quite legally for decades - it had a problem with unauthorized translations, especially those by Protestant "heretics" like Tyndale and Luther. So also did Henry's C of E, which continued to enforce the Statute of Oxford. The Vatican, of course, would soon issue its official Douai-Rheims.Solicitr (talk) 17:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Not quite right. After Wycliff it was in Oxford forbitten to translate the bible into English. It is clear that a offical, means authoirized version of the Bible came after Luther in circulation. The Douai-Rheims Version owns relations to the Tyndale Bible translation and so the Luther Bible. The Luther Bible was the first Bible which was addressed to the common people, but these first prints where expansive also. The Bible Translations before seems to be addressed on experts, more as a help for reading the Latin text. (The most of these Bibles were handwritten.) On the other hand the katholical church was not so swift that it intervented ad hoc in this time. (Compare the Trial to Luther). So you can better say, it wa risky to translate the bible for common people and it existed an inoffical forbiddance. The priestership of all baptised people was Lutheran theoogy. The catholic church accepted it centuries later, after Luther. --Soenke Rahn (talk) 08:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

In fact, the Catholic Church doens't accept the "priesthood of all believers". This is Lutheran theology contrary to the Catholic belief that there is a separated clergy. It was Erasmus one of the first proponents of the translation of the Bible to all languages, which unfortunately the Catholic Church only accepted much latter.85.243.69.247 (talk) 17:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Erasmus wasn't accepted by the Catholic Church. Later in Erasmus lifetime, he was between both positions, the Lutheran and the Catholic. The Catholic Church acctepted parts of the priesthood of all believers (better translated with ... of all baptised peopled), but named it not with the Lutheran words. The Priesterhood of all belivers included several results. One of it is that anybody can read the Bible. This is today possible for each Catholic one. It was an argument by the Caholtic Church that the Bible is so complex that common people, possibly like Luther, never can unterstand it. In the Last the pope himself is the only one which can say what is to read in the Bible and what is right and wrong. The priesterhood of all believers was a very important basic for the success of the Democratic movement. Now it was possible for Common people to say what is right and wrong. Another thing is the position of people in the Church. In evangelic Churches it is a tradition that common people can help more in the service and are more involved. And a Lutheran can baptise other people when a man will have an accident and no priester is in the near. ... The Catholic Church gives more rights to the catholic belivers since the Second Vaticanum (Council). A lot of the Consequences and ideas of the Priesterhood of all Belivers are today accepted of the Catholic Church. But it is right that the Cathlic Church never accepted the word priesterhood of all believers in general and some of catholic ones will never say and accept that they are influenced by the Reformation. ... --Soenke Rahn (talk) 09:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

"Erasmus wasn't accepted by the Catholic Church." Sorry this is quite wrong, or borderline meaningless. If by "Catholic Church" I suppose your mean the hierarchy...but Erasmus was sponsored and directed by Bishops especially the English Bishops throughout his life: the hierarchy saw him as performing an important work; the Pope contributed a preface to the second edition of Erasmus' New Testament; Cardinal Ximinez defended him; the Archbishop of Canterbury wanted Erasmus to be buried in the same grave as him. Etc. etc. Erasmus' enemies in the church were mainly university theologians from the mendicant orders, and there had been a centuries-long fight at the universities between the "theologians" (scholastics) and the "poets" (humanists and mystical theologians.) Much of Erasmus' writing in the last decades of his life was vehemently defending himself against people who claimed he was not Catholic: historians point out that he was for institutional reformation not doctrinal revolution. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 14:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

On the topic of priesthood of all believers, please look at the article on Wikipedia for better information. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 14:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion for link to substantial resources on Tyndale

The Tyndale Society (an educational charity based at Hertford College Oxford and set up in 1995 by Professor David Daniell) has substantial online resources devoted to the topic of William Tyndale. This includes a fully-searchable archive of research articles published in 'The Tyndale Society Journal' - the Society's twice yearly magazine, and 'Reformation' - the Society's annual scholarly publication. Could a link to the Society's website be included in this Wikipedia page, so that this wealth of research material can be added to the resources currently included here? If so, the url is: http://www.tyndale.org/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.161.168 (talk) 11:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

In the past there was a link to it and I mean it was moved to a special page a society article in the wikipedia. But this article was deleted or was it in discussion that it should be moved? I would be for it to place some informations to the society again into the article. with friendly greetings, Sönke Rahn --Soenke Rahn (talk) 18:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

By the way there exists an Article to David Daniell also. --Soenke Rahn (talk) 18:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

It would be great if you could re-include / re-incorporate The Tyndale Society on the William Tyndale page, as you suggest above. I notice that there is already a Society website link on David Daniell's page - thanks for the note about this, so I hope you might be able to use the same link? By the way, we've also put a link to the William Tyndale Wikipedia page on our membership blog (http://thetyndalesociety.blogspot.com/) to encourage newcomers to Tyndale to use this page as a reference source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.67.85.100 (talk) 15:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the addition of the link to the Tyndale Society. The accusation it is only a commercial site below is ridiculous. You can't even use a credit card to join the society. It is based out of an Oxford College, and was founded by David Daniel, and has two scholarly journals. If anything, it should be more commercial to fund its journals, and promote books on Tyndale, Thomas More, and other Tutors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harrycroswell (talk • contribs) 14:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

First

We are told "...first...Greek...first..Greek...". The claim that Tyndale was the first to translate the New Testament into English from Greek seems to refer to Erasmus's editions. As noted in the article Novum Instrumentum omne, this text was partly translated from the Latin vulgate. In fact almost all protestant translations until recently were based on the Erasmus-Stephanus text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 09:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

In the article is not to read that he does not use the Latin text. But it was not a primary base and so on ... it was not the new thing on the Bible translation. I suppoe it could be possible to find a good quote, ... --Soenke Rahn (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

"arrested by church authorities"? wrong

According to "The English Hexapla" were "some of the officers of the emperor"[3] who seized him.
Tyndale was under Imperial arrest. Lord Cromwell in his efforts to free Tyndale addressed to members of the Imperial Government and not of the Church: "Cromwell, however, did make some exertions on his behalf, by striving to influence some members of the Imperial Government in his favour, using the king's name, but his efforts were useless."[4].
Priscilla Martin in her introduction to "William Tyndale's New Testament" writes that "The King and Cromwell appealed in vain to the Emperor" [5].--Domics (talk) 10:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Accusation of the trial? --Soenke Rahn (talk) 10:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

heresy & treason (this last charge is missing in the article). Arrested by Emperor's men and seized in a civil prison under Imperial control. The kings (both of them) had all power to free him if they wanted. In the "English Hexapla" is clearly written that the Emperor's men were sent from Bruxelles to Antwerp expressly to arrest him. And "In 1536, when Tyndale suffered, Henry VIII and the Emperor were again on good terms; which may have been the reason of his being put to death, even though Henry had nothing to do with his apprehension. If Henry had chosen, he might now have interfered to save him."--Domics (talk) 11:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

also Poyntz addressed to the Emperor's council in Brussels (see Daniell, William Tyndale, p. 371) in order to free his friend Tyndale..So who arrested him and who had the power to free him?--Domics (talk) 11:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you think that, if Martin Luther would have written down, please pope convert, that there will hapen something. It is clear that Poyntz wrote to an administration. If you have problems in another country, you will write also to your administration first. It based on a conviction of old catholic theology. This is clear and so on ... The question: Is which persons were involved in the trial on the place were Tyndale was imprisoned ... and who had given the order to seek him for the trial. Another thing is that it is not possibly in each case to devide persons in a person of the church and a person of reign of Henry, e.g. Thomas Morus. -- It is a little bit like the topic of the Diet of Worms. Nobody would say, that only Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor is guilty. The Catholic Church of this time wanted that Luther should be condemned. The court proceedings based on theoologic questions and persons of the church had given opinions and so on. --- If you want to underline, which persons are guilty for the dead of William Tyndale, it is clear that both parts, administration of Henry and the Catholic Church, represented by several English persons and the old theology, made mistakes and this is readable in the article. --Soenke Rahn (talk) 19:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I looked again on the sentence and I have erased "by church authorities", because I think it is clear that the church was involved but this is better to see by the topic heresy which is following in this sentence. And I would say in such sentence, how he was to read, it would correct to "write by local authorities, after repression by the church (spiritual power) and the worldly power and so on". But this sentence should give an overview to the article nothing more. --Soenke Rahn (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

My remarks could serve also to improve Betrayal and death' section [6]. Of course Tyndale's death is to be attributed to many factors.
From Daniell's book "William Tyndale: A Biography":
"What was Tyndale's crime? For what was he arrested, imprisoned for so long, and eventually condemned to death? Phillips, Foxe explains, had so ingratiated himself with the Court at Brussels by his declared hatred of King Henry that he was able to arrange for "the procurer-general, which is the emperor's attorney no less, to go with him, with other officers, to Antwerp, to arrest Tyndale. In other words, the charge was heresy, with not agreeing with the Holy Roman Emperor - in a nutshell, being a Lutheran".( p. 365).
The procurer-general (Emperor's attorney Pierre Dufief) did the preliminary work for the trial; the Regent (not Church autorities) appointed the seventeen commissioners to try the case: three were the catholic theologians; four were attorneys of the privy council.(p. 375) In order to explain the delay in the execution Daniell writes that the Council "had anxiety about the possible political dangers in executing an Englishman for whom Cromwell had pleaded". "The sensible thing for the council would be not to act without the Emperor's express permission" (p. 382).
So let's resume; Phillips denounced Tyndale not at Church autorities but at the Court in Brussels; Tyndale was arrested by the Emperor's attorney and by Emperor's officials; the Council and the King had the power to free Tyndale before and during the trial as demostrates by Cromwell and Poyntz' appeals; the Council and the King had also the power to spare his life even after the death sentence if they wanted of course.. And last "he was condemned by virtue of the emperor's decree, made in the assembly at Augsburg"Foxe's Book of Martyrs.--Domics (talk) 09:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

false resume ... because you have erased the complex society of the past ... e.g. look above --Soenke Rahn (talk) 15:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Original research in Tyndale phrases, based on Greek?

I added the original research template for this section. It appears to be the contribution of one author, who has done his own research with original texts. As usual, I think this should be published elsewhere first, and then we can link to it. For now I would recommend that this whole section be deleted. -- Margin1522 (talk) 11:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

William Tyndale's parents

The article lists Sir John Tyndale and Amphillis Coningsby as his parents. Sir John was born in 1486 and Amphillis in 1478. I am not sure how they could have had a son circa 1492. Tyndale and other variations of it's spelling was common at that time. I can't help to wonder if the parents listed are actually his parents or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtate007 (talk • contribs) 04:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not know for sure where he was born nor the exact year nor the exact place. ChilternGiant (talk) 15:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

"Believer's baptism" and soul sleep?

The section entitled "Theological Views" contains the following sentence: "He taught justification by faith, believer's baptism, the return of Christ, and mortality of the soul."

The idea that Tyndale taught "believer's baptism" and soul sleep is patently absurd. The only source used for this information is this: Bryan W. Ball, The Soul Sleepers: Christian Mortalism from Wycliffe to Priestley (2008), pp. 48ff.

Can someone please check to see whether or not this is a reliable source, or just some cult publication? 96.234.153.69 (talk) 18:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint, I have the unsourced Baptistic Pov Wish Theory erased, today. --Soenke Rahn (talk) 10:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Told

We are told that Tyndale's book inspired Henry, with nothing said about Anne Boleyn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.98.54.8 (talk) 15:49, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

The text of the article says "Tyndale had to learn Hebrew in Germany due to England's active Edict of Expulsion against the Jews."

Reuchlin's Hebrew grammar of 1506 might have been available in England. I am not sure that the quoted remark is true.

Did Tyndale coin these phrases?

The section headed Legacy, Impact on the English Language, says, “As well as individual words, Tyndale also coined such familiar phrases as...” and then lists the phrases in question.

If these are correct, citations would help to give the list authority. However, as it stands, there seems to be a need to check the list's accuracy. For example, the following are listed as phrases coined by Tyndale:

• lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil.
• twinkling of an eye.
• my brother's keeper.
• gave up the ghost.
• filthy lucre.

However, the biblegateway.com website (which may well be inaccurate) shows that all these phrases appeared earlier in the Wycliffe translations.

Equally, the following list shows phrases that are claimed to be Tyndale coinages; but Tyndale's Bible translations are worded slightly differently, according to David Daniell's modern-spelling versions:

• seek and you shall find – Tyndale says, “seek and ye shall find”;
• judge not that you not be judged – Tyndale says, “judge not that ye be not judged”;
• live and move and have our being – Tyndale says, “live, move and have our being”;
• fight the good fight – Tyndale says, “that thou in them shouldest fight a good fight”.

It's not clear where the phrase “eat, drink and be merry” comes from; a search on Google suggests the Bible does not contain this phrase. If Tyndale coined this phrase, a citation would be helpful.

So unless there's more to this than meets the eye, I'd suggest deleting the phrases that had already appeared in the earlier translations and correcting those that are misquoted. Adrian Robson (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, statements about coining and "how much of the KJV comes from Tyndale" often need to be taken with a grain of salt, because Tyndale was not working in a vacuum: there had been typical verbal translations (as delivered in Homilies and Prone each Sunday) as well as the written-down translations in Middle English (Wycliffite EV, LV, Paues) and Old English (e.g. the paraphrases) so there was an established vocabulary in the wild. Plus, of course, Tyndale followed Luther's germanic constructions a lot (after fixing word order.)

So yes, if there is a good source that some phrase was not original, the phrase should be removed.

(As to Tyndale's version being misquoted, you would need to check with several editions, as he did change his text a lot: some of the problems that Tunstall and More had with the first and second versions were fixed later.) Rick Jelliffe (talk) 02:42, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Catholics still defend execution

It should probably be mentioned that the general Catholic position is still that he deserved to die for disrespecting the church. A quick Google search of "William Tyndale Catholic church" will bring a lot of apologetics about how he was "such a sinner" and that his murder was not wrong.2600:1:91CB:A803:DE27:8D6B:7543:4700 (talk) 00:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

No, the article should not have non-NPOV original research that expresses obvious bigotry: "general Catholic position" pulllllease... Rick Jelliffe (talk) 14:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

God's name in its rightful place

" the first English translation to place God's name [Jehovah] in its rightful place " what does this mean? It appears in the lede but is never explained or elucidated. Dlabtot (talk) 19:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

My guess is that this is a tersely worded version of this, from the Wikipedia article on Jehova: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah.

"Jehovah was popularized in the English-speaking world by William Tyndale and other pioneer English Protestant translations such as the Geneva Bible and the King James Version." The citation on this sentence is: "In the 7th paragraph of Introduction to the Old Testament of the New English Bible, Sir Godfry Driver wrote, "The early translators generally substituted 'Lord' for [YHWH]. [...] The Reformers preferred Jehovah, which first appeared as Iehouah in 1530 A.D., in Tyndale's translation of the Pentateuch (Exodus 6.3), from which it passed into other Protestant Bibles." I suggest "rightful place" with its POV could be replaced by "preferred by English Protestant Reformers", and the citation copied over.Harrycroswell (talk) 12:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on William Tyndale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927021257/http://www.tyndale.org/TSJ/25/arblaster.html to http://www.tyndale.org/TSJ/25/arblaster.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tbn.org/watch-us/our-programs/william-tyndale-his-life-his-legacy

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:25, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

47 scholars/translators produced King James Bible 1611

I corrected this... In 1611, the 47 scholars who produced the King James Bible<ref]King James Bible Preface</ref] 73.85.207.40 (talk) 16:18, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Foment/ferment

In the second paragraph I believe "foment" should be "ferment." "Foment" is a verb, not a noun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NCIrving2 (talk • contribs) 05:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Surely “Tindal” and “Tyndal” are (also) sundry spellings of of his name

…so why on earth would the aforeshown spellings of his lastname be left unlisted? 2A00:23C7:2B13:9001:59DD:8FD3:CAC7:1E82 (talk) 21:53, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Opposition to Henry VIII's annulment

"In thus publicly attacking the King, Tyndale proved he was willing to not only hinder his own translation work, but even to risk his own life for the sake of a virtuous society." I have marked this as dubious: he was in exile in order to not give up his life, surely? How would it hinder his work? This is more of the confusion about countries, kings and jurisdictions that plagues material on Tyndale. If given, it needs a citation to a non-hagriographic Reliable Source IMHO. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 12:48, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Needs Wordsmithing

"Tyndale's translation was the first English Bible to draw directly from Hebrew and Greek texts to some extent, "

The "to some extent" seems to apply to both Hebrew and Greek, and I do not think that's the author's intent. I think the passage is to convey the idea that the translation primarily drew directly from Hebrew, and what was "drawn" from Greek was secondary, i.e. "to some extent". I think including a comma in the passage might convey the meaning more accurately, as in "Tyndale's translation was the first English Bible to draw directly from Hebrew, and Greek texts to some extent,..." or even parenthesis "Tyndale's translation was the first English Bible to draw directly from Hebrew (and Greek texts to some extent) ...", bujt I don't have the literary/editing skills to make the call. I just know that this passage is not clear on the author's intended meaning, and needs to be fixed.2603:8081:3A00:30DF:F85B:2B2B:EF87:ED46 (talk) 14:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

IIRC correctly, I put in the "to some extent" and yes I did mean it to apply to both the Greek and Hebrew. We don't know the extent, nor do we know how much e.g. he cross-checked with the Vulgate and the German. I think we can be quite suspicious of unsourced claims that these were new translations only consulting the Greek NT and Hebrew OT (which is an insult to Tyndale's diligence and scholarship, surely?)

Again, the well has been rather poisoned by centuries of polemical pseudo-histories that needed to marginalize the impact of the Latin, the Septuagint, the German and English vernacular tradition etc. One approach to fix it is to try more to cite recent academic papers that have hard research, I think. So a good way to summarize the sources that seem, in parts, to be low quality, without engaging in Original Research, is use moderating words that alert the reader, such as "to some extent" or "according to X". Rick Jelliffe (talk) 16:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Priorities of the Lede

"In 1536 he was convicted of heresy and executed by strangulation, after which his body was burnt at the stake."

This should be the 2nd or 3rd sentence in the lede, and not the last sentence of the lede's last paragraph. Ledes are not the actual Article, nor do they need to be structured in a "timeline" like the Article. The fact that he was killed by the Church is rivaled in importance only by the fact that he translated the Bible, and I suspect that the reason he was killed was BECAUSE he translated the Bible, therefore these two most-important facts are "married" and mutually co-dependent. His translation efforts are made more significant by the fact that he was killed as a result, and the fact that he was killed was due to the fact that he translated the Bible, therefore it is nonsensical at best, and censorship at worst, to try to separate these two "married" facts and try to present them as if they are two separate and standalone facts that have nothing to do with each other, when in fact the information is not divisible, and both sides of the coin exist as a single "unit" of information. The fact that intelligent minds that have created this Article have divided them indicates something significant other than oversight or error, and probably something more akin to information manipulation, censorship and attempting to control the narrative for a reason other than simply telling the truth of historical events.2603:8081:3A00:30DF:F85B:2B2B:EF87:ED46 (talk) 15:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is no evidence that his scripture translations (as distinct from his own writings) caused his execution. A suspicion is not enough, nor are the hundreds of books which repeat what appears to be a myth. If you can find a WP:RS source which actually references contemporary witness, please do so. But there is a lot of well-meaning but bogus info on Tyndale (such as that More killed him) so I think it is better to be strict and not drawn unfounded connections. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 15:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)