WM 332: Discussion: TYNDALE: The Costly Legacy of Faithful Bible Translations

 

Tyndale Film website.

JTR

WM 321: Fidelity and Intelligibility: Has Mark Ward Misunderstood Tyndale's Plowboy?

 

My notes for this episode:

Mark Ward is a freelance youtuber who has become well known as an, and sometimes extremist, critic of popular contemporary use of the incessant King James Version, even claiming that it should no longer be used in Christian institution and declaring recently that it would be sinful to give a KJV to a child.

If you’ve ever listened to any of Ward’s videos, there’s a good chance you’ve heard him make the claim that he is simply following the spirit of William Tyndale (1494-1536), the first person to translate the NT into English from the original Greek, who once famously declared to a Roman Catholic cleric, “If God spare my life, ere many years I will cause a boy that driveth the plough shall know more of the Scripture than thou dost.”

In a recent debate with an independent Baptist pastor, Ward finished his closing statement with several dramatic references to Tyndale and the plow boy.

He lamented that some folk supposedly have put “having the Bible” over “understanding the Bible.”

He claimed that “Literally no one has done more work than he has to help people understand the KJV.”

He recalled (as he has often done in the past) that in his senior year of high school he played Tyndale in the school play.

He declared, “I have the heartbeat of William Tyndale.” Continuing in an impassioned and theatrical tone to say, “Please do not deny that my heart’s desire is for the plowboy to understand God’s Word,” saying, “I don’t want to miss a single [word], and I don’t want the plowboy to miss them either.”

And adding, “You cannot have the help of a preacher. You need a translator.”

He closed his speech with this paraphrase, “Lord open KJVOnlyism’s eyes.”

If you know Ward, you know he has a very broad definition of KJVOnlyism, essentially encompassing anyone who prefers its use to other translations.

The question remains as to whether Ward has properly understood what Tyndale meant in his famous statement, “If God spare my life, ere many years I will cause a boy that driveth the plough shall know more of the Scripture than thou dost.” Did Tyndale carry out his work of translation in the way that Ward suggests?

I’ve noted before some of many problems with Ward’s approach is his insistence on “absolute intelligibility” in Bible translation. Unless the reader—no matter his age, experience, or maturity—understands the meaning of every single word and phrase at his first sitting, Ward suggests, then the translation fails.

Criticism of Ward’s “absolute intelligibility” view was well stated by James Snapp, Jr. on his blog on October 29, 2024, in an article titled, “Mark Ward and his Ridiculous Claim about the KJV.”, a critique that Ward has yet to acknowledge, much less to offer a response.

In that post, Snapp said, “Dr. Ward seems to think that the Bible should be translated so plainly that it is incapable of being misunderstood.  Unfortunately such a translation has never existed and never will exist on earth….”

I thought of this recently as a I read an essay by Alan Jacobs, an Humanities Professor at Baylor University. The essay is titled, “Robert Alter’s Fidelity,” and it appears in a collection of Jacob’s essays, titled, Wayfaring: Essays Pleasant and Unpleasant (Eerdmans, 2010).

The essay is about Jewish scholar and literary critic Robert Alter’s publication of his translation of The Five Books of Moses. He has since completed the entire OT. Jacobs praises Alter’s translation not for its readability but its fidelity, and he makes much of that distinction.

In the opening pages he also makes some interesting comments about Tyndale’s saying about the plow boy and his interpretation of it is not the same as Ward takes it to be.

See Jacobs’ essay pp. 12-15.

Highlights and conclusion:

Jacobs says, “In translation, fidelity is the ultimate imperative and trumps every other virtue: even clarity or readability” (12).

Jacobs says we must not think that Tyndale assumed “the ideal experience of reading Scripture” is one in which “clarity manifests itself fully and immediately” (13).

He warns against translations that are swayed by “an assertively egalitarian, democratizing, and anti-clerical culture like our own today” (14).

He warns also of translators who think of themselves as being in loco parentis, thinking of readers as “little children” who need “scholarly fathers” to protect them “from the agonies of interpretive confusion” (14).

 Tyndale himself did not do this. He introduced words in his translation that his readers would not know (because he himself coined those words and phrases: like, Jehovah, atonement, Passover, scapegoat, mercy seat, etc.).

Tyndale was more concerned with fidelity than intelligibility. This same sense led AV translators to use terms like “propitiation” to describe the atonement in Romans and 1 John. The term was not well known to the readers of that day, but it rightly taught the meaning of Christ’s atoning death.

Jacobs says men of this era knew that Scripture “exhibits its clarity only to those who undergo the lengthy intellectual discipline of submitting to its authority” (14).

No matter how passionately it might be stated, we must conclude that Mark Ward does not, in fact, demonstrate “the heartbeat of William Tyndale.”

Ward’s understanding of Tyndale seems frozen in a simplified and unsophisticated version of Tyndale’s thought, retained from Ward’s memory of a high school play.

It does not represent a mature and accurate understanding of Tyndale or his view of what makes for a good translation.

As Paul puts it in 1Corinthians 13:11: “When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.”

One of the marks of Ward’s confusion on this issue is that he claims the text underlying a translation is an unimportant factor in evaluating the worthiness of that translation. This is a total rejection of fidelity as the guiding principle of Bible translation.

In the end, we have to conclude, with Jacobs, that those who approach Bible translation, as does Mark Ward, do not approach in the spirit of Tyndale, whose concern was not that the plowboy might immediately have complete comprehension of every word, but that he might, over time, with the Spirit’s help and the instructions of officers appointed in Christ’s church, come to know it truly and faithfully.

JTR

WM 123: Text Note: The Doxology of the Lord's Prayer (Matt 6:13b)

I have recorded and posted WM 123: Text Note: The Doxology of the Lord's Prayer (Matt 6:13b) (Listen here).

Here are my notes:

When illustrating the differences between the modern and traditional text of the NT the doxology of the Lord’s Prayer (Matt 6:13b) proves an important example, since this passage is so well known and loved in liturgy and personal piety.

The key questions: What did the Lord Jesus teach his disciples to pray? What did Matthew record when he included this prayer in his Gospel in the Sermon on the Mount?

Part One: An email exchange on the Doxology of the Lord’s Prayer (Matt 6:13b):

Back on March 31 a listener wrote (exchange slightly edited):

Hello again Pastor,

I was wondering if you have done anything like a podcast on the ending of the Lord’s Prayer?

I was in a conversation the other day with someone from church and the authenticity of the ending of the Lord’s Prayer came up.  They said “it’s not in Erasmus”

I just said well I didn’t know that and that is interesting.

I wasn’t really looking for a debate.

I do see it in almost all the printed texts it seems from Beza, Steph.... but…I don’t see it in Erasmus from what I can tell at least.

But all my old Reformed commentaries have it from John Calvin to John Gill.

My response (a month later on May 1):

Sorry to be so long in getting back.

I'd love to do a WM on Matt 6:13b sometime. Hopefully, I'll get to it eventually.

I checked my digital copy of Erasmus's first edition (1516), and it is there in both Greek and Latin. I'll attach a picture.

You may know that the doxology also appears in the Lord's Prayer when cited in chapter 8 of the Didache (but omitting "the kingdom"), which dates to c. 100, so it is the earliest attested reading.

Hope this helps, JTR

Image: Erasmus 1516 Greek and Latin NT (including Matt 6:13b):

To which he responded the next day (May 2):

Thanks for the response. It does help.

Oddly it was my Pastor that said it wasn’t in Erasmus. He probably just heard someone blabbering nonsense about the ending one day. There is so much! bad information out there on this issue of the text.

Have a great day

Part Two: Tyndale and the Doxology of the Lord’s Prayer (Matt 6:13b):

I thought of that exchange recently when someone pointed me to a blog article on text criticism that appeared on the Gospel Coalition website on April 11, 2019. The article is by Justin Dillehay, pastor of Grace BC in Hartsville, TN, and titled “4 Ways to Shepherd Your Flock Through Textual Variants” (read it here), and it also addresses the doxology of the Lord’s Prayer (Matt 6:13b).

In the article he makes reference to Tyndale’s omission of Matt 6:13b in the first edition of his English Bible (1526).

So, I wondered if the earlier writer’s pastor had confused Tyndale with Erasmus (or the if the writer had confused his pastor’s words).

I also wanted to be sure this was factually accurate, so I checked a digital copy of Tyndale’s 1526 online, and it does, indeed, omit Matt 6:13b. Here is an image from Tyndale's 1526 NT:

I then, however, checked my copy of David Daniell’s modern spelling edition of Tyndale's 1534 NT (Yale, 1989, 1995) and found it includes the doxology: “For thine is the kingdom and the power, and the glory for ever. Amen.” So, I searched for a digital copy of the original of Tyndale's 1534 NT also:

In his introduction to his edition of Tyndale’s 1534 NT, David Daniell writes:

“Tyndale translated the New Testament twice, and continually revised. His 1534 New Testament was his greatest work.”

We are left to ponder why Tyndale omitted Matthew 6:13b in his 1526 edition. It is possible that he did so in order to bring his translation of the prayer into conformity with the Latin Vulgate which also omits it. This is one of many examples  of places where the modern critical text adopts readings in line with the Vulgate. The Clementine Vulgate concludes the Lord’s Prayer: “Et ne nos inducas in tentationem. Sed libera nos a malo. Amen.” (Matt 6:13). The Lord’s Prayer which includes the doxology might therefore be considered a distinctively Protestant understanding of the prayer.

It is important to remember that it was the 1534, not the 1526 edition, which is considered to be Tyndale’s “greatest work.” The fact that he omitted the doxology of the Lord’s Prayer in the preliminary 1526 NT, therefore, should not be used as a justification for its omission today, especially since upon later consideration Tyndale determined to include it.

Part Three: A Brief Look at the External Evidence:

In support of the modern critical text’s omission: Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, along with D, Z, 1070, family 1, Lectionary 2211. Among versional support we have the Latin tradition, Middle Egyptian (Mesokemetic), and some Bohairic Coptic mss. Among the Fathers Origen is cited.

In support of the traditional text we have K, L, W, Delta, Theta, family 13, 33, etc. and the Majority tradition. Among the versions we have some individual Latin mss. like f and q, the Harklean Syriac, some Boharic Coptic mss., etc.

Most interesting is the reading in chapter 8 of the Didache (c. 100) which includes the doxology but omits “the kingdom” reading: “thine is the power and glory forever.” It also omits the “Amen” and is followed by the injunction: “Pray thus three times a day.”

The NA 28 puts a thumb on the scale by prefacing the textual variants by a reference in parenthesis to the prayer of David in 1 Chronicles 29:11-13. The implication apparently being that later scribes would have tried to make David’s doxology part of the prayer of Jesus, the Son of David. But this begs the question as to whether Christ himself appropriated these words in order intentionally to echo David.

NA 28 also adds to the apparatus an obscure variant from the fifteenth century ms. 1253 which reads: “for thine is the kingdom of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit forever. Amen.” This suggests that the ending was malleable and open to orthodox “improvement.” But the ending in 1253 is clearly late while the doxology is very early (cf. Didache, W, etc.).

Metzger’s textual commentary (second edition) offers more insight on the modern text critical assessment.

Part Four: Conclusion:

The doxology (including the Amen) is the fitting ending to the Lord’s Prayer. It’s appearance in the Didache proves it to be the earliest attested reading. Clearly, it is not a late development. It was the reading affirmed in the majority of Greek manuscripts, including some of the earliest age (like W) and is only excluded by a handful of Greek mss. Though omitted in the Latin tradition, it was nevertheless, preserved in the West, with the printing of the TR and distinctively affirmed by various Protestant translations, including Tyndale’s definitive 1534 English translation.

JTR

William Tyndale, Canonical Order, and Hebrews

I recently began reading through David Daniell’s “modern-spelling edition” of Tyndale’s 1534 English NT (a revision of Tyndale’s original 1525 work) [Yale, 1989]. Of interest is the canonical ordering of the books.  As in the 1525 edition, Tyndale follows the order:

Gospels	Matthew, Mark, Luke, John
Paul’s Letters	Romans, 1-2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1-2 Thessalonians, 1-2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon
Catholic Epistles	1-2 Peter, 1-2-3 John, Hebrews, James, Jude
Revelation	Revelation

Of note, in particular, is the order of the General Epistles wherein he begins with the Petrine and Johanine epistles and then lists Hebrews, James, and Jude (followed by Revelation).  As with the 1525 edition, Tyndale followed the order of books in Martin Luther’s 1522 NT (see the discussion in David Daniell, William Tyndale:  A Biography [Yale, 1994]:  pp. 110, 119-124).  Luther’s moving of Hebrews, James, and Jude (followed by Revelation) out of the typical order reflected his sense of these books having a secondary importance. Though Tyndale follows this order, he does not appear to share Luther’s “canon within the canon” sentiments.  The interesting thing to note is that at this point there is no “standard” way to order the NT books in an English translation, because, prior to 1525 there were no English translations of the NT from the original Greek.  Tyndale’s English translation of the NT has a lasting impact but his (Luther’s) canonical order was not, in the end, embraced.

Also of interest is Tyndale’s prologue to Hebrews.  With regard to authorship, he retains the traditional title “The Epistle of St. Paul Unto the Hebrews” but observes, “Now whether it were Paul’s or no I say not, but permit it to other men’s judgments, neither think I it to be an article of any man’s faith, but that a man may doubt of the author” (p. 345).

He notes the objections registered by some against the canonicity of Hebrews, based, in particular, on its theology of repentance, conversion, and apostasy in various passages. He mentions chapters 6, 10, 12, in particular.  There are no verse divisions in the work (the first Greek NT with verse divisions was Stephanus’ fourth edition of 1551 and the first English Bible with verse divisions was the Geneva Bible in 1560).  In the end, Erasmus defends the treatment of these topics in Hebrews and concludes his prologue by asking, “And seeing the epistle agreeth to all the rest of the scripture, if it be indifferently looked on, how should it not be of authority and taken for holy scripture?” (p. 347).

JTR

Daniell: Tyndale "gave to English not only a Bible language, but a new prose."

Image:  Facsimile of the  full page woodcut print of Matthew dipping his pen in a pot held by an angel, which prefaced Tyndale's translation of Matthew in the "Cologne Fragment."

I’m still enjoying David Daniell’s William Tyndale:  A Biography (Yale, 1994).  In his discussion of Tyndale’s early efforts at translating the Bible into English while in Cologne, Germany, Daniell offers this reflection on how Tyndale’s labors shaped the development of English prose:

Yet something more important is happening; the English into which Tyndale is translating has a special quality for the time, being the simple, direct form of the spoken language, with a dignity and harmony that make it perfect for what it is doing.  Tyndale is in the process of giving us a Bible language.  Luther is often praised for having given, in the ‘September Bible’, a language to the emerging German nation.  In his Bible translations, Tyndale’s conscious use of everyday words, without inversions, in a neutral word-order, and his wonderful ear for rhythmic patterns, gave to English not only a Bible language, but a new prose.  England was blessed as a nation in that the language of its principle book, as the Bible in English rapidly became, was the fountain from which flowed the lucidity, suppleness and expressive range of the greatest prose thereafter (pp. 115-116).

David Daniell on Erasmus Legends

I was reading today from David Daniell’s classic work, William Tyndale:  A Biography (Yale, 1994).  I was struck by his discussion of Erasmus’ Novum Instrumentum where Daniell makes reference to the “legend” that Erasmus rushed the work into print and that it was subsequently riddled with errors.  Here, in part, are his comments:

There is a legend that Erasmus worked with Froben his printer at break-neck speed in 1516 in order to get ahead in the market….  The legend, partly resulting from Erasmus’ own explanation of haste, perhaps as a cover for possible errors, has been used to condemn the enterprise; in fact, all the parts of Erasmus’s volumes show care and accuracy (pp. 60-61).

Indeed, the “legend” that Erasmus did his work quickly and sloppily was popularized by Bruce Metzger in his influential works on text criticism and those ideas were then picked up and passed on by others (like D. A. Carson and James White).  I believe that these legends were largely promoted in the modern era in order to undermine the authority of the Textus Receptus.  The first I heard of anyone debunking these Erasmus legends was in the writings of Erasmian scholar M. A. Screech.  David Daniell’s voice can now be added as well.  For more on this listen to the discussions in WM #  25 and WM # 26.

JTR